Thai Airways sues over passenger’s flight diversion criticism

[tomazbodner]

Just realised THAI made it quite clear that you'll go to both Melbourne and Sydney... Even pic is from Sydney... So, passengers were warned!

 

[Reigntax]

3 hours ago, Andrew65 said:

Did Thai facilitate onward travel to Melbourne? 

thats the exact question that should be asked and how long before they arrived in Mel.

[steven100]

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Oh, they'll be educated,... those who are in the position to make the decision to sue for defamation will be highly educated...   But they have grown up in a insular business culture that nurtures an element of self-righteousness within an environment of kraeng-jai that contributes to a fragility and absense of maturity that is simply unable to handle criticism...  they lack the emotional tools to simply ignore criticism.

 

 

 

aha .... I really hope it comes back and bites them on the a__ .....   a big Thai OTT ...  

 

but the guy who questioned the pilot needs reprimand and some more .....   he was a <deleted> .... who in their right mind would question a Captain pilot decision unless your the king of England or whatever ....

[ujayujay]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

Thai Airways has taken legal action against a passenger who criticised the airline’s decision to divert a Bangkok-Melbourne flight to Sydney due to adverse weather conditions. The airline asserts that the crew followed international safety and security standards and seeks to protect its reputation and that of its personnel.

 

Thai Airways has addressed the uproar caused by a passenger’s complaints about a captain’s decision to change a flight’s landing destination from Melbourne to Sydney. Yesterday (February 1), the airline announced it was pursuing legal steps to defend its rights and those of its employees affected by the incident on flight TG 465 on January 28. The airline reiterated its adherence to safety and security standards and emphasized the significance of not misleading the public.

 

The passenger’s post, which criticised the pilot’s actions on the January 28, flight from Bangkok to Melbourne and led to an alternate landing in Sydney due to weather at Melbourne Airport, has sparked widespread discussion. Many have voiced support for Thai Airways’ decision to take legal action against the passenger, praising the airline for setting a positive precedent in a society increasingly filled with disrespect, reported KhaoSod.

 

One comment read, “It’s justified and a thank you to Thai Airways for setting a good example for society. Insulting and slandering are not honest criticism. Remember this, or better yet, tattoo it on your forehead so you see it every time you look in the mirror!”

 

by Nattapong Westwood

TOP FILE PHOTO: A Thai Airways Boeing 777-300ER plane takes off from Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport February 23, 2015. REUTERS/Chaiwat Subprasom/File Photo/File Photo

 

Full story: The Thaiger 2024-02-02

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

 

More and more reactionary elements are taking over in Thailand, which is worrying! Anyone who criticizes becomes an enemy of the state.........

[richard_smith237]

9 hours ago, steven100 said:

 

aha .... I really hope it comes back and bites them on the a__ .....   a big Thai OTT ...  

 

but the guy who questioned the pilot needs reprimand and some more .....   he was a <deleted> .... who in their right mind would question a Captain pilot decision unless your the king of England or whatever ....

 

Well, there's one particular poster on this thread who would...   But, its quite obvious in a number of threads in which he posts that he's very far from being what would be considered 'in his right mind' !!!...   

 

[still kicking]

24 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

Just realised THAI made it quite clear that you'll go to both Melbourne and Sydney... Even pic is from Sydney... So, passengers were warned!

 

There is no flights to Perth.

[steven100]

5 minutes ago, still kicking said:

There is no flights to Perth.

yes ... so .... ?      there are no flights to Perth

[sometimewoodworker]

2 hours ago, Pouatchee said:

 

do i have to? really? if the airlines are too cheap to equip their planes with the best available safety technology to guarantee the safety of their passengers then that belongs to them. so, ignorant much?

sorry... what does 'so uneducated much' mean? did you get that on chat gpt? if not... consider using it

You really have no concept of the economics of flying do you? You want the minimum KKC -> DMK fair to be 3 to 4 times higher?
 

Many top tier airports do not have CATIII ILS equipment on all runways, it is horrendously expensive to install and maintain. Also there are aircraft, again from well known airlines, that are either not equipped with the equipment to take advantage of the ILS CATIII or whose pilots who are not trained and certified to use it. 

Some airports like LHR are equipped due to the likelihood of fog making a CATIII landing the only choice. But get an airport that seldom has bad enough conditions or one that is small, like Udon or few if any of the aircraft are equipped for zero visibility landing and whose crews are not trained for it and in low visibility conditions diverting is the correct choice.

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, steven100 said:

13 minutes ago, still kicking said:

There is no flights to Perth.

yes ... so .... ?      there are no flights to Perth

 

Thai Airways do fly to Perth, via Melbourne.... but as you pointed out...   so ?? (whats his point ?).

 

I think you are referring to direct flights...   But again, whats the point of your comment ?

Edited February 2 by richard_smith237

[still kicking]

Just now, steven100 said:

yes ... so .... ?      there are no flights to Perth

Why mentioned? The flights to Perth start on the 31rst of March.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

You really have no concept of the economics of flying do you? You want the minimum KKC -> DMK fair to be 3 to 4 times higher?
 

Many top tier airports do not have CATIII ILS equipment on all runways, it is horrendously expensive to install and maintain. Also there are aircraft, again from well known airlines, that are either not equipped with the equipment to take advantage of the ILS CATIII or whose pilots who are not trained and certified to use it. 

Some airports like LHR are equipped due to the likelihood of fog making a CATIII landing the only choice. But get an airport that seldom has bad enough conditions or one that is small, like Udon or few if any of the aircraft are equipped for zero visibility landing and whose crews are not trained for it and in low visibility conditions diverting is the correct choice.

 

You mentioned CAT...    he'll think you are discussing felines...  

[still kicking]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thai Airways do fly to Perth, via Melbourne.... but as you pointed out...   so ?? (whats his point ?).

Via Melbourne which is 3500 km away and cost about 1500 dollars 

[steven100]

4 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Why mentioned? The flights to Perth start on the 31rst of March.

who would want to go to perth ?     it's too far ..   haha

[ravip]

14 hours ago, proton said:

Another reason not to book with them, talk about fragile egos.

I guess this decision would be taken only by a handful of AN members who have nothing good to say about Thailand while still living there.

 

Such negativity is only found here at AN and before on TV. I guess been a member here we get some sort of a 'privileged' status - where we are way above the Thai people and anything to do with Thailand?

[still kicking]

4 minutes ago, ravip said:

I guess this decision would be taken only by a handful of AN members who have nothing good to say about Thailand while still living there.

 

Such negativity is only found here at AN and before on TV. I guess been a member here we get some sort of a 'privileged' status - where we are way above the Thai people and anything to do with Thailand?

Agree

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Why mentioned? The flights to Perth start on the 31rst of March.

20 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Via Melbourne which is 3500 km away and cost about 1500 dollars 

 

The Point of these flights (which usually run empty on the Perth Leg) is to keep the primary route open.

 

They're called Ghost flights...    Melbourne is the primary destination but as there are bilateral agreements and limits on how many flights an operator can make into a major airport such as Melbourne, the final destination has to be a 'non-primary' airport. 

Perth is not considered a 'major airport' under these agreements, as such, extra flights can be added to Melbourne with Perth as the registered destination without falling outside of any bilateral agreements...  

(Qatar Airways does exactly the same).

 

Obviously the Melbourne route is profitable enough to justify the extra 'ghost leg' to Perth.

 

And from March, seasonal routing perhaps makes Perth an economically viable direct route.

[still kicking]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The Point of these flights (which usually run empty on the Perth Leg) is to keep the primary route open.

 

They're called Ghost flights...    Melbourne is the primary destination but as there are bilateral agreements and limits on how many flights an operator can make into a major airport such as Melbourne, the final destination has to be a 'non-primary' airport. 

Perth is not considered a 'major airport' under these agreements, as such, extra flights can be added to Melbourne with Perth as the registered destination without falling outside of any bilateral agreements...  

(Qatar Airways does exactly the same).

 

Obviously the Melbourne route is profitable enough to justify the extra 'ghost leg' to Perth.

 

And from March, seasonal routing perhaps makes Perth an economically viable direct route.

You got no idea 

[trainman34014]

Oh Dear; Throwing their Dummy's out of the pram again !

[NanLaew]

20 minutes ago, ravip said:

I guess this decision would be taken only by a handful of AN members who have nothing good to say about Thailand while still living there.

 

Such negativity is only found here at AN and before on TV. I guess been a member here we get some sort of a 'privileged' status - where we are way above the Thai people and anything to do with Thailand?

 

Ah, so you can spot the Thai bashers a mile away as well, eh?

[roo860]

15 hours ago, Nordic summer said:

It was very disrespectful of this passenger to publicly voice his opinion, given that he/she/they most certainly don't have a clue as to what it takes to plan and execute such a flight in a responsible manner.

Myself having had the privilege of being a passenger of Thai Airlines, is left with a bad taste in my mouth just reading about it

 

Some(westerners) will say the airline displays an"fragile ego" by instigating this lawsuit, but please take a moment to compare the service and attention that you receive while traveling with Thai Airlines to ANY European company.

 

They work very hard to provide a pleasant experience for their passengers and I am sure they are very proud of their prowess, so it should come as no surprise that this company got upset about this passenger's outburst.

Brown noser.

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, still kicking said:

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The Point of these flights (which usually run empty on the Perth Leg) is to keep the primary route open.

 

They're called Ghost flights...    Melbourne is the primary destination but as there are bilateral agreements and limits on how many flights an operator can make into a major airport such as Melbourne, the final destination has to be a 'non-primary' airport. 

Perth is not considered a 'major airport' under these agreements, as such, extra flights can be added to Melbourne with Perth as the registered destination without falling outside of any bilateral agreements...  

(Qatar Airways does exactly the same).

 

Obviously the Melbourne route is profitable enough to justify the extra 'ghost leg' to Perth.

 

And from March, seasonal routing perhaps makes Perth an economically viable direct route.

Expand  

You got no idea 

 

Here's the same thing explained from the perspective of Qatar Airways.

 

https://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/why-is-qatar-flying-near-empty-jets-around-australia/#:~:text=Numbers onboard the second leg,to get people to Melbourne…

 

Thai Airways do exactly the same thing... 

 

 

[tomazbodner]

1 hour ago, still kicking said:

There is no flights to Perth.

I just snapped that from their homepage https://www.thaiairways.com

 

[daveAustin]

One of the worst aspects of Thai culture… be seen to punish those who dare to criticise in order to save face. Check! Let it go, Thai Airways, this is 2024 and you are customer based. Suck it up or this will likely blow up and lose you even more revenue and respect as a trusted carrier. Perhaps that’s the ploy… let this go wild to take away focus on the airline’s current rubbishy performance and outlook. Hmm. 

[bristolgeoff]

Never  heard a airline sue passengers because of a change of landing,but doing this will not win new customers.

[Banana7]

After reading this article, I definitely will avoid booking any and all flights with Thai Airlines. I hope Thai airlines provided free ground transportation  for all passengers and their luggage to the original destination, immediately upon landing.  It's a 9 hour road trip between the 2 cities or 1.5 hour flight! If they didn't, they should have provided financial compensation. If they don't provided any compensation, I hope Australian transportation agency fines Thai airlines or revokes their landing rights.

Edited February 2 by Banana7

[kiwikeith]

17 hours ago, steven100 said:

So the offending passenger previously withdrew the message and comments on social media and apologized.

Now the Thai's want to sue the offender for posting the criticism.

 

hmm.....    so removing / deleting the comments was not good enough for the Thai's. 

 

 

More trouble than it's worth, stupid, comment should just be ignored 

[richard_smith237]

28 minutes ago, Banana7 said:

After reading this article, I definitely will avoid booking any and all flights with Thai Airlines. I hope Thai airlines provided free ground transportation  for all passengers and their luggage to the original destination, immediately upon landing.  It's a 9 hour road trip between the 2 cities or 1.5 hour flight! If they didn't, they should have provided financial compensation. If they don't provided any compensation, I hope Australian transportation agency fines Thai airlines or revokes their landing rights.

 

I'm not sure of Asian / Australian rules... but I imagine they're not too dissimilar from EU regulations. 

 

As this was a 'natural event' (weather) - then no compensation is applicable. 

 

It is still the airlines responsibility to get the passengers  and luggage to their final destination and ensure they are 'watered and fed' (depending on duration of delay).

 

TG 465 circled for 20 mins as per ATC due to fog and low visibility at the Airport before diverting to due fuel reasons.

 

The flight touched down at Sydney at 08:51 hrs and took off at 10:29am

Passengers made it to their destination at 11:41am, 4 hours 19 mins later than their scheduled landing time of 07:20 am.

 

ALL of the actions of Thai airways, their fuel load and decision to divert met with international and universal safety standards. 

 

Thai airways acted professionally up to this point. 

 

 

Thai Airways are suing the Passenger for publicly accusing the captain of lying about the reasons for the diversion. 

In doing so, Thai airways have scored an own goal. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2 by richard_smith237

[Banana7]

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm not sure of Asian / Australian rules... but I imagine they're not too dissimilar from EU regulations. 

 

As this was a 'natural event' (weather) - then no compensation is applicable. 

 

It is still the airlines responsibility to get the passengers  and luggage to their final destination and ensure they are 'watered and fed' (depending on duration of delay).

 

TG 465 circled for 20 mins as per ATC before diverting to due fuel reasons.

 

The flight touched down at Sydney at 08:51 hrs and took off at 10:29am

Passengers made it to their destination at 11:41am, 4 hours 19 mins later than their scheduled landing time of 07:20 am.

 

ALL of the actions of Thai airways, their fuel load and decision to divert met with international and universal safety standards. 

 

Thai airways acted professionally up to this point. 

 

 

Thai Airways are suing the Passenger for publicly accusing the captain of lying about the reasons for the diversion. 

In doing so, Thai airways have scored an own goal. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this additional info.

Edited February 2 by Banana7

[Bepah umayun]

they want money, methinks. 

[Webfoot]

I’m starting to realize that free speech is not considered a right in Thailand.