orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said: It would have been ATC who the flight in a holding pattern... as highlighted by the flight radar on BKKBike09's post on page 4. It would have been the pilot's decision to hold for weather improvement or divert to his alternate. If he elected initially to try for Melbourne then he would have been instructed to hold, with a possible "onwards clearance time". Its TOTALLY the pilot's decision to wait and hold or divert. Not ATC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 22 hours ago, TigerandDog said: not true in Australia. If Airservices tell a pilot he has to divert, he MUST divert to the airport that Airservices directs him/her to as that airport has been advised by Airservices that flight XXX is being diverted to the alternate airport. The ONLY way the pilot would be able to override such a directive is if there was an emergency on board or if there was insufficient fuel to reach the alternate airport. Wrong. Totally the pilot's decision when and where he wishes to divert. Sometimes the flight plan will indicate their preferred/nominated alternate airport. Sometimes that alternate will have developed unsuitable wx also, or it may already be "full" of other aircraft which have diverted there already,leaving no bays for de-boarding and only parking on taxiways. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 21 hours ago, Brickleberry said: Completely backwards way to respond to criticism. Fair enough, the passenger might have been in the wrong (I don't know the specifics of the case). A better response would have been to respond to the complaint in a measured, intelligent way. Perhaps if they had explained the decision to the passenger on social media, they might have apologized and removed the criticism. Checking the weather yesterday reveals that conditions were not particularly dangerous at all. Partly cloudy, no strong winds.... Perhaps the customer had a valid point, hence the complete over-reaction by TA.https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/melbourne/historic This is tourist weather, NOT aviation weather. Totally irrelevant to this saga. Note "visibility" N/A..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanuman2547 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 I have avoided flying Thai Airways internationally for many years. It's pretty easy as they don't serve the city I live in at my home country. I would have to fly somewhere else first and make another connection. There are many other Asian carriers that serve the city near me so I just fly with them. Plus the other carriers are all significantly cheaper to fly with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 23 minutes ago, orchidfan said: 18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said: It would have been ATC who the flight in a holding pattern... as highlighted by the flight radar on BKKBike09's post on page 4. Expand It would have been the pilot's decision to hold for weather improvement or divert to his alternate. If he elected initially to try for Melbourne then he would have been instructed to hold, with a possible "onwards clearance time". Its TOTALLY the pilot's decision to wait and hold or divert. Not ATC's. ATC put the flight in a holding pattern (due to low visibility at the airport). The pilot diverted (after 20 mins of holding) due to fuel reserve concerns. The decision the pilot made was to follow policy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Off topic posts and replies about Tenerife contravening our Community Standards have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, sikishrory said: This is odd in that the weather on that day appears clear according to weather records. Also numerous planes taking off and landing during the time TG465 was scheduled to land at 7.20am https://www.flightradar24.com/2024-01-28/07:15/20x/-37.68,144.84/13 Its already been shown that there were also other planes that were put in a holding pattern and some also diverted due to poor visibility at the airport. There are numerous reasons for this. In perfect conditions more flights can take off and land as the regulations permit them to be more closely 'stacked'... In poorer visibility conditions flights require more spacing, both take off and landing... This results in delayed flights taking off, and flights being placed in holding pattern while they wait for flights ahead of them to land. Edited February 3 by richard_smith237 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephbloggs Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 16 hours ago, JohnAllan said: I haven't read the criticism ... but I seriously doubt any slander was involved. As for Thai pursuing legal action ... not the BRIGHTEST decision it could have made! This is Asean Now at its finest! Haven't read it yet you have drawn your conclusion and taken the side of the anti Thai posting foreigner, brilliant. Try reading it, it was clear slander in any country. Quote As for Thai pursuing legal action ... not the BRIGHTEST decision it could have made! This I agree with. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephbloggs Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 15 hours ago, Reigntax said: thats the exact question that should be asked and how long before they arrived in Mel. It doesn't need to be asked. If you bother to read about it (I know that is beyond most posters here) you'll see that after a short time on the ground in Sydney they flew to Melbourne. It arrived four hours late in total, but arrived safely. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephbloggs Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 12 hours 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. Another AN genius, talking about fining TG or removing their landing rights for a scenario that you just made up. A one minute internet search will tell you they continued on to Melbourne after a short time on the ground and arrived four hours after their scheduled time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul1804 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 On 2/2/2024 at 1:19 PM, Peterphuket said: Would like Thai airways to also take 'legal action' against itself, regarding failure to refund cancelled flights during the Corona period. To this day, have had no refund. Basterds! There must be some legal obligations of the airline, given their pussy attitude and the usual Thai "loss of face" scenario they deserve to be held accountable. They took your money for a service that they failed to provide on the BS Coronavirus virus scam which the Thai government was complicit in. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 18 hours ago, BKKBike09 said: It took that TG flight a further 60 minutes flying time for the diversion to Sydney. So they must have had enough fuel for that + mandated safety margin. Meaning they had the endurance to stay in a hold for 30-40 minutes and then continue on to Melbourne (which is what both the SQ and QF flights that arrived at that hold at the same time as that TG flight elected to do). So. Three flights faced the same conditions. Two stayed in a hold. The TG diverted. So, if they had the diversion fuel plus mandated reserve margins, (a flight which you quote as having taken 60 minutes) where would they have been after holding for another 30~40 minutes and the WX did NOT improve at Melbourne?? Diversion to Sydney cut off (no longer enough fuel reserves remaining ) and nowhere suitable to go! Factor in that QF have flight Ops teams who would have assessed wx trends and advised their flight to wait it out. SQ would have followed what QF did. I believe that, given the situation and useable fuel remaining, the Captain of TG made the correct decision. PS. For other members, Australia and most international airlines and service providers, follow ICAO standards, not FAA. There are some differences ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravip Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 15 hours ago, NanLaew said: Ah, so you can spot the Thai bashers a mile away as well, eh? Ones got to be blind, or absolutely minus the grey matter, not to spot that! How many people here can accept REALITY as it is with an open and unbiased mind? We drape ourself with the superiority cloak and croak without any substance. Edited February 3 by ravip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 43 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said: ATC put the flight in a holding pattern (due to low visibility at the airport). The pilot diverted (after 20 mins of holding) due to fuel reserve concerns. The decision the pilot made was to follow policy. ATC do not arbitrarily "put aircraft into holding patterns" due to destination wx. IF the pilot elects to wait and hold,then ATC will nominate a suitable, published holding pattern or make one up on the spot. IF the pilot elects to divert, ATC will coordinate a route and level with adjoining sectors for the diverting aircraft to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Brickleberry Posted February 3 Popular Post Share Posted February 3 56 minutes ago, orchidfan said: This is tourist weather, NOT aviation weather. Totally irrelevant to this saga. Note "visibility" N/A..... As I said earlier, I am not an expert at all and neither is the passenger (one assumes!). I am not having a go at the pilot, I have no idea what actually happened. It would be perfectly reasonable for the customer to complain - they can see that several other planes landed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to complain. It is completely unreasonable for an airline to sue its customer for expressing a perfectly valid opinion. They should have explained the situation, and he may have apologized and taken down the post - which is what he did anyway after receiving a lot of backlash online. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 13 minutes ago, orchidfan said: 1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said: ATC put the flight in a holding pattern (due to low visibility at the airport). The pilot diverted (after 20 mins of holding) due to fuel reserve concerns. The decision the pilot made was to follow policy. Expand ATC do not arbitrarily "put aircraft into holding patterns" due to destination wx. I haven't implied anything was done arbitrarily... It does appear as though you are 'trying to argue with me'... while at the same time repeating what I have pointed out throughout this thread... its rather odd. 13 minutes ago, orchidfan said: IF the pilot elects to wait and hold,then ATC will nominate a suitable, published holding pattern or make one up on the spot. IF the pilot elects to divert, ATC will coordinate a route and level with adjoining sectors for the diverting aircraft to follow. erm.. ok. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshu25 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 17 hours ago, JohnAllan said: I haven't read the criticism ... but I seriously doubt any slander was involved. As for Thai pursuing legal action ... not the BRIGHTEST decision it could have made! Unbelievable comment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Popular Post Share Posted February 3 19 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: As I said earlier, I am not an expert at all and neither is the passenger (one assumes!). I am not having a go at the pilot, I have no idea what actually happened. There is plenty of news and info about what did happen... and that has been repeated on this thread. - Low visibility at the Airport. - ATC placed the flight in a holding pattern. - Aircraft held this (holding) pattern for 20 mins. - Pilot made the decision to divert to Sydney based based on fuel reserves. - Flight landed at Sydney (assume it was refuelled there) - Flight landed at final destination (Melbourne) 4 hours later than scheduled. - Passenger publicly criticised the Pilot for his decision to divert and accused him of lying for the reason for the diversion. - Issue reached the Media - Passenger removed his Facebook Post. - Thai Airways instigated legal action against the passenger for Defamation. 19 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: It would be perfectly reasonable for the customer to complain - they can see that several other planes landed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to complain. It is completely unreasonable for an airline to sue its customer for expressing a perfectly valid opinion. They should have explained the situation, and he may have apologized and taken down the post - which is what he did anyway after receiving a lot of backlash online. The passengers complaint was not reasonable. Several other planes were placed in holding patterns. Several other planes were also diverted. The reason was explained to the passengers (diversion due to poor visibility and fuel load). The actions of the Pilot were within all regulations, the fuel load within regulations. The ONLY issue I see here is the 'own goal' of Thai Airways suing a passenger when they could have just simply ignored him and the issue would not have grown arms and legs. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said: I haven't implied anything was done arbitrarily... It does appear as though you are 'trying to argue with me'... while at the same time repeating what I have pointed out throughout this thread... its rather odd. erm.. ok. No, not arguing with you Richard .but simply correcting possible misinterpretation of some of your comments... Quote: "If Thai Airways couldn't land due to low visibility and circled, its because ATC instructed them to do so... then range became an issue hence the decision to divert." ???err mmm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Inflammatory posts and posts with derogatory generalizations and the replies contravening our Community Standards have been removed: Please be polite and respectful to others Do not flame, troll or stalk other members 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Daley Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) Mr. Thai Airways you have failed to show an losses and in fact your turnover went up during that time. Your lawsuit has been dismissed and you pay for the passengers' legal expenses. Edited February 3 by Chris Daley 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKBike09 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 hour ago, orchidfan said: So, if they had the diversion fuel plus mandated reserve margins, (a flight which you quote as having taken 60 minutes) where would they have been after holding for another 30~40 minutes and the WX did NOT improve at Melbourne?? Diversion to Sydney cut off (no longer enough fuel reserves remaining ) and nowhere suitable to go! Factor in that QF have flight Ops teams who would have assessed wx trends and advised their flight to wait it out. SQ would have followed what QF did. I believe that, given the situation and useable fuel remaining, the Captain of TG made the correct decision. On the WX not improving - I posted earlier the METARs for the time period in question. Here they are again: Fog came and went pretty quickly, as is often the case. Melbourne regularly has fog, being on the coast. So there'd be a reasonable expectation that this wouldn't sock in the airport for the whole day. Plus Melbourne has CAT IIIB ILS (albeit only on one runway) which allows for min rwy viz down to 75 metres. Even when the METAR stated FOG (briefly), the reported viz was 200 m. Not sure why "SQ would have followed what QF did"; presumably TG would have had that option. I've never said that the TG captain didn't make the correct decision and I never would: I wasn't in the cockpit. In my original post I also made the point that you need to know TG company policy on WX diverts, which I don't. To me, this is all just a look at how different carriers may deal with a certain non-urgency situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickleberry Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 52 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said: There is plenty of news and info about what did happen... and that has been repeated on this thread. - Low visibility at the Airport. - ATC placed the flight in a holding pattern. - Aircraft held this (holding) pattern for 20 mins. - Pilot made the decision to divert to Sydney based based on fuel reserves. - Flight landed at Sydney (assume it was refuelled there) - Flight landed at final destination (Melbourne) 4 hours later than scheduled. - Passenger publicly criticised the Pilot for his decision to divert and accused him of lying for the reason for the diversion. - Issue reached the Media - Passenger removed his Facebook Post. - Thai Airways instigated legal action against the passenger for Defamation. The passengers complaint was not reasonable. Several other planes were placed in holding patterns. Several other planes were also diverted. The reason was explained to the passengers (diversion due to poor visibility and fuel load). The actions of the Pilot were within all regulations, the fuel load within regulations. The ONLY issue I see here is the 'own goal' of Thai Airways suing a passenger when they could have just simply ignored him and the issue would not have grown arms and legs. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have no expertise at all, and I didn't read through all of the details in each person's post. In that case, it does seem unreasonable for the customer to complain, and it does look like he was having a temper tantrum. That being said, is it unreasonable to express your opinion? Other flights did indeed land after holding for a short while. The passenger is entitled to his opinion. Especially on a platform like FB where your posts are intended for your friends and family. It would be a different story altogether if he had posted this on their public website. I definitely won't be flying with TA because of this. Not because the pilot was right or wrong, but because they sued a customer for something written on his personal Facebook page. Childish games, and I won't fly with an airway that engages in such behavior. I believe the airway is being completely unreasonable. You can complain and throw out accusations in anger, but if you apologize and take down the post, then that should settle the matter. Defamation suits are a great way to take revenge, and to shut up any other customers. I definitely will not be flying with this airway, because it treats its customers this way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 4 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said: On the WX not improving - I posted earlier the METARs for the time period in question. Here they are again: Fog came and went pretty quickly, as is often the case. Melbourne regularly has fog, being on the coast. So there'd be a reasonable expectation that this wouldn't sock in the airport for the whole day. Plus Melbourne has CAT IIIB ILS (albeit only on one runway) which allows for min rwy viz down to 75 metres. Even when the METAR stated FOG (briefly), the reported viz was 200 m. Not sure why "SQ would have followed what QF did"; presumably TG would have had that option. I've never said that the TG captain didn't make the correct decision and I never would: I wasn't in the cockpit. In my original post I also made the point that you need to know TG company policy on WX diverts, which I don't. To me, this is all just a look at how different carriers may deal with a certain non-urgency situation. Scheduled landing time for TG 465 was 07:20 hrs - any data for then ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have no expertise at all, and I didn't read through all of the details in each person's post. In that case, it does seem unreasonable for the customer to complain, and it does look like he was having a temper tantrum. That being said, is it unreasonable to express your opinion? I think there is a difference between "Oh no, flight diverted, arrived tired and stressed"... and "The Thai Airways Pilot lied to us"... (I'm not sure what the passengers post actually mentioned though). 7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: Other flights did indeed land after holding for a short while. The passenger is entitled to his opinion. Especially on a platform like FB where your posts are intended for your friends and family. It would be a different story altogether if he had posted this on their public website. The weather at Melbourne Airport varies and can be 'foggy' throughout the year (apparently). I'm guessing it was not known at the time how long the ATC would keep TG 465 in a holding pattern - the decision was made based on fuel reserves - no chances taken. For this to have reached social media, the FB post was public enough. But it wasn't just an opinion posted, it was an accusation against the proffessionalism of the Pilot ergo an accusation at Thai Airways (of lying). 7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: I definitely won't be flying with TA because of this. Not because the pilot was right or wrong, but because they sued a customer for something written on his personal Facebook page. Childish games, and I won't fly with an airway that engages in such behavior. Absolutely agree - it is this sort of behavior by an Airline that highlights how little they value their customers. Although I'm flying them next week.. what if something goes wrong, complain and get ignored ? how do I get my complaint heard? through social media attention and risk being sued ???... We just cross our fingers and hope the airline makes no mistakes.... 7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: I believe the airway is being completely unreasonable. You can complain and throw out accusations in anger, but if you apologize and take down the post, then that should settle the matter. Defamation suits are a great way to take revenge, and to shut up any other customers. I definitely will not be flying with this airway, because it treats its customers this way. Agree.. this is Thai airways 'saying' we are bigger than our customers... don't ever test us on this. As others have written, they are still owed money from the Covid debacle... I've received my refund from Qatar Airways cancelled flights - although it did take 5 months. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said: Scheduled landing time for TG 465 was 07:20 hrs - any data for then ? The metar times are in GMT (UTC), so ,say 2030 GMT is 0730am Melbourne time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 4 minutes ago, orchidfan said: 22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said: Scheduled landing time for TG 465 was 07:20 hrs - any data for then ? The metar times are in GMT (UTC), so ,say 2030 GMT is 0730am Melbourne time. Thanks for the clarification... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chongalulu Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 6 hours ago, Dionigi said: I think, if you make a contract with a company to convey you by air to a certain destination, on a particular type of aircraft, at a particular time, at a particular price, and arrive at another time, then any deviation from that schedule is a broken contract. I think Thai Airlines should be thankful that the only have complaints and not class action lawsuits. You clearly need to revisit your understanding of contract law ! Especially as it applies to airlines 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 48 minutes ago, Chongalulu said: 7 hours ago, Dionigi said: I think, if you make a contract with a company to convey you by air to a certain destination, on a particular type of aircraft, at a particular time, at a particular price, and arrive at another time, then any deviation from that schedule is a broken contract. I think Thai Airlines should be thankful that the only have complaints and not class action lawsuits. You clearly need to revisit your understanding of contract law ! Especially as it applies to airlines Indeed... he could start with finding out what 'Force Majeur' is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orchidfan Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 For all of the non~aviation qualified members of this forum, I offer the following clarification : HOLDING of arriving air traffic is mainly, only used/required in the following circumstances. 1. When wx at the destination is deemed, by the pilot in command ,or his company, to be unsuitable, at the time, for attempting approach and landing. Pilot decision....wait or divert. 2. Traffic metering /flow control dictates that arriving traffic must hold to join the "sequence". Taking their turn, as directed by ATC , to exit the Hold and resume the Arrival or as directed by ATC. ATC decision * *but the pilot can reject this holding if there are other reasons for them to divert to another airport or call minimum fuel/mayday fuel or onboard emergency. 3. Aircraft experiencing onboard technical problems which requires them to sort out the problem, dump fuel etc. End of topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now