Thai Airways sues over passenger’s flight diversion criticism

[Wrwest]

Taking legal action in Thailand as this type of case would not be entertained in any Australian court … or am I wrong in this assumption?

[damo1967]

6 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. 

 

 

If you are asking a question, then it is a 'NO'.  Are you a little slow?

[renaissanc]

I hear a rumour that THAI is holding training courses for their employees about: "How to Shoot Yourself in the Foot", "What We Must Do to Lose Customers", "How to Annoy the Public so That They Refuse to Fly With Us", "How Airline Corporate Offices Can Make an Airline Go Broke", "How to Bully Customers", and lastly "How an Airline Can Behave Stupidly Online". ... Rumours! Rumours! Rumours!

[Elkski]

Very poor way to run a company.  So much for free speech.   I cant imagine a post critiquing a diversion causing any loss of bookings.   They should have just explained they taje safety seriously even though it meant extra cost and problems for the Passengers, crew and connections, etc. 

Can  tell this airline is ran by the old guard mentality. 

[Thaddee]

4 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Word of mouth is an incredibly powerful tool in the travel industry, and travelers often rely on online reviews and social media to make their purchasing decisions. If this airline develops a reputation for silencing criticism through legal threats, it could seriously damage its brand and reputation, which could lead to a significant loss of business.

Kind of reminds me the whole situation with Move Forward and the criticism of royalty. Inflated egos, and fragile.

[keithkarmann]

This pales into insignificance when you compare Thai Airways lack of apologies to thousands of customers who were/are owed refunds for over four years with no intention of paying any interest on the money. Glass houses comes to mind.

 

[renaissanc]

14 minutes ago, Jack Cook said:

Are you delusional? It is not a privilege to fly with Thai airways at all. They have progressively gotten worse since bad management forced them into near bankruptcy. I fly regularly business class BKK Melbourne return. Only use them because they are direct. The arrogance of them suing a passenger has lost me. From now on I will fly Vietnam airways and do the HCMC stop over. They are a far better better planes and service anyway. In typical Thai fashion the Thai Airways slipped from 10th best in the world to 40th and they think they have the right to sue people 😂😂😂😂😂😂

I wonder if THAI will sue me too for clicking "Like" on this comment.

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, bbko said:

5 hours ago, proton said:

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

So you won't book with them cause they are taking legal action and then talk about fragile egos? Oh the irony 😆

 

Thats not irony at all... 

 

Thats choosing not to use a company that uses such business practice as suing its customers - thats not fragility, its making a choice.

 

The defamation laws in Thailand are abominable and seniors in Thai Airways clearly are showing their juvenile attitudes in acting this way...   

 

This is quite an own goal and highlights how Thai Airways can have the continued difficulty when those in charge can operate in such an immature manner. 

[Spock]

As a Melbournite who regularly uses Thai Airways on this route, I would like to know what happened to the Melbourne bound passengers once the plane was diverted to Sydney. Were they looked after by the airline at Sydney airport? Were they flown on to Melbourne at no additional expense? The treatment I received as a passenger after the diversion is what would be uppermost in my mind when determining my feelings about the action of the pilot and the airline. 

[pacovl46]

That's way over the top in my opinion! A simple statement to clarify the situation would've been more than. Unless the post in question contained insults. 

[lemonjelly]

Pathetic behaviour from an international carrier. Other carriers wouldn’t dream of such babyish reactions to a negative post on social media

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

That's way over the top in my opinion! A simple statement to clarify the situation would've been more than. Unless the post in question contained insults. 

 

Not even any need for that....    the initial criticism was stupid, everyone knows that, it can just be ignored - not even worthy of comment or response.

 

Instead, Thai Airways have managed to turn an 'non-issue' into an own goal and managed to secure negative publicity out of thin air...  

 

... This is known as the Streisand effect...    Where attempting to limit and censor what they see as a negative information back fires and generates greater negativity... 

 

 

[renaissanc]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If the had not diverted , there would had been complains why they did not. 

If they were following standard procedure, then  the passenger’s post was defamation that could damage the airlines reputation and result in loss of revenue. 

The airline was right to take legal action, if I was the CEO I would have done the same, and I suspect that if this was your company you would have done the same also. 

 

 

It sounds like this was going through someone's mind at THAI: "The only thing that will make us happy again and restore our beloved airline's reputation, which he has destroyed globally forever and ever and ever through his comment, is to sue him for 10+ billion Baht so that he has no money ever again, no money to buy food for himself and his family, no job, and nowhere to live! We want them to starve and to be destitute for the rest of their lives. How dare he express his opinion! How dare he!" ... THAI needs to calm down.

[klauskunkel]

Next one for Thai Airways to sue is the writer of this article (as featured on Aseannow 4 days ago):

Thai Airways: A Downward Spiral of Service, Accountability, and National Pride

[DjSilver]

Again, Thai Airways shows what a poor budget airline they are. I guess these days the only ones who are using Thai Airways, are Isan prostitutes that live outside of Thailand 🤣

[IAMHERE]

Did any air planes land in Melbourne at the time thai Air would have landed?

 

OH, and the Thai libel law worked as intended I'd say.

 

 

[steven100]

25 minutes ago, damo1967 said:

If you are asking a question, then it is a 'NO'.  Are you a little slow?

 

Did you see a question mark anywhere within my comment.

English composition not one of your strong points obviously.

[Pouatchee]

36 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

How many planes have you landed ?

 

2 both time in blizzards

and you?

[Lacessit]

If the passenger was a trained professional pilot who was qualified to fly the aircraft he was transported on, he might have a point. On balance of probabilities, it's very unlikely.

Given there are flight factors aircrew have to deal with passengers are blissfully unaware of, it would be foolish to be second-guessing their actions.

[steven100]

I wouldn't be surprised if we hear Thai airways withdrawal the legal action after a day or two.

 

just a hunch ' ......

[wensiensheng]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If the had not diverted , there would had been complains why they did not. 

If they were following standard procedure, then  the passenger’s post was defamation that could damage the airlines reputation and result in loss of revenue. 

The airline was right to take legal action, if I was the CEO I would have done the same, and I suspect that if this was your company you would have done the same also. 

 

 

Actually, I don’t see that the passengers post defamed the airline at all. If anything it gave them publicity for taking the correct decision in the interests of safety. I wasn’t aware of the incident before, but I am now and am impressed that they put safety first. 
 

So where is the defamation?

[CANSIAM]

Not a very bright move by the struggling airline, doomed 

[CANSIAM]

Not a very bright move by the struggling airline, doomed 

[Cereal]

6 hours ago, Pouatchee said:

diverted flight happened to me once on the way to a border run to laos. sure, there was some fog but not enough in my opinion to divert the flight. i have been on flights in canada where there was snow falling, and the winds made visibility a bit challenging to land. the pilots nailed it. me thinks thai pilots are pussies and thai airways? pretty spineless if you ask me. for the last 3 years, in canada, airways are being put through the ringer for everything from flight delays to lost luggage.

 

thais are such dangerous frickin' babies when it comes to criticism. say something they dont like and get first class ticket to the courts

I was a flight attendant with Air Canada for 10 years and did some flying as well. You are correct from your perspective about landing in fog. But, your perspective is looking out your window down at the ground. The pilots' perspective is looking straight ahead thus they are seeing the fog completely different than you are. It is much thicker  looking straight ahead. There's also the legal limits of flight set by the proper government authorities that dictate how far you can see which then dictates whether landing or taking off is possible or not. 

 

Having said this, I agree that Thais are way too sensitive to criticism. Which is to say they can't handle it at all. Also, Thai Airways sucks!

[theshu25]

But didn't the original poster make out himself to be some sort of expert in the flying bussiness ,when in all reality he is  just a tosser trying to big note himself. He said it was fine to land in Melbourne clear skys and he has flown this route many many times. Ha ha . How dare he question the captain of a plane.

[NanLaew]

6 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. 

 

 

 

No, not good enough for Thailand's Defamation Laws.

 

You may recall the American teacher who wrote a scathing and rambling review of a west coast beach resort that resulted in him being threatened under the defamation laws by the owners. He stupidly doubled-down, posting another deleterious and fundamentally off-topic review. When this did result in his being sued by the property owners, after being apprised of the perils of the defamation laws here, he finally withdrew all the posts, met with the owners, had a great photo-op with everyone smiling and exchanging flowers and the ubiquitous baskets of Brands... only for the lawsuit to stick and the numpty being run out of Dodge on a rail. Som nam-nah as they say here.

 

The defamation laws here are arcane. Ill-conceived, open for abuse, and wouldn't stand a chance of becoming legislation in many other countries. Unfortunately, this is Thailand and in this case I say stick it to 'em TG. Well done.

[steven100]

18 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Actually, I don’t see that the passengers post defamed the airline at all. If anything it gave them publicity for taking the correct decision in the interests of safety. I wasn’t aware of the incident before, but I am now and am impressed that they put safety first. 
 

So where is the defamation?

So you've read all the comments the alleged offender wrote ?

[impulse]

5 hours ago, Nordic summer said:

To be perfectly honest, I think this news item will fly well below the radar of the public.

 

You mean like it has on this forum?  Where I already see 10x as many negative remarks about the airline and its performance than the guy's now deleted critique for which he's getting sued. And it seems, they're just getting started.

 

Multiply that by hundreds of other travel forums and the self inflicted damage to the brand will be huge.

 

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Actually, I don’t see that the passengers post defamed the airline at all. If anything it gave them publicity for taking the correct decision in the interests of safety. I wasn’t aware of the incident before, but I am now and am impressed that they put safety first. 
 

So where is the defamation?

I did not see the specific statement if you have please provide a copy, all I saw was "critical"   IMO a critical statement is a negative statement, and a negative statement that is not true is defamation. 

 

That it might have the opposite effect is immaterial 

 

[Al BB]

6 hours ago, peter zwart said:

Typical Thai reaction. They really can't handle anything. Easily offended in their ego at the slightest thing. If they had a bit more upstairs (brains), they would have dealt with this in a mature way. And if you have a good communication department, you can build a lot of goodwill in a case like this. But not in this immature manner.

No wonder its 40th on the (Skytrax) list of 100 Airlines!