Thai Airways sues over passenger’s flight diversion criticism

[sirineou]

40 minutes ago, renaissanc said:

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.

Wow a mind reader. 

What's going on in my mind right  now? 

[TigerandDog]

It would NOT have been the pilot's decision to divert to Sydney, that decision would have been made by Airservices (Australian Air Traffic Control) and the pilot would have had no choice but to adhere to that decision. What needs to be ascertained is whether or not the pilot made an announcement about the diversion and why. If an announcement was made then the passenger was obviously not paying attention.

 

Additionally what could the passenger actually be sued for? Surely not defamation, but TIT.

[mikeymike100]

6 hours ago, soi3eddie said:

 

The THAI Airways PR department is making a mess of this. As a business, this is no way to react to customer critiscism. A simple statement on procedures and need for safety would have been plenty. Instead, they let it blow up like this threaten to sue a customer for making criticism (since retracted and apolgised for). Not a great way to treat customers. If the management have this attitude then how can that affect the attitudes of customer facing staff such as cabin crew and ground staff in the performance of their duties to the customers. Doesn't look good.

 

Exactly, any other airline would have said something like 'we take safety very seriously and go to great lengths to ensure our customers are kept informed of any diversions, in this case the captain, who's decision it was, decided to divert because of weather etc...... We are sorry if this inconvenienced any passengers!'

 

It's standard boilerplate stuff that all airlines use.

But to sue the passenger is beyond ridiculous. They would need to prove they have lost business over this at least, plus which the passenger apologized!

 

 

 

[BKKBike09]

Need to know what the WX was at the time that caused the diversion (historic aerodrome forecasts - METARs - for 28 Jan at YMML).

 

Also need to know TG company policy on diverting. The TG flight was in the hold to north of Melbourne for one orbit and then went off to Sydney at 2047 UTC. 

 

A QF flight from HK entered the same hold very shortly after (2051 UTC) the TG flight departed and then held for 40 mins before continuing on to land at Melbourne.

 

TG

 

QF

 

 

 

[mikeymike100]

2 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

It would NOT have been the pilot's decision to divert to Sydney, that decision would have been made by Airservices (Australian Air Traffic Control) and the pilot would have had no choice but to adhere to that decision. What needs to be ascertained is whether or not the pilot made an announcement about the diversion and why. If an announcement was made then the passenger was obviously not paying attention.

 

Additionally what could the passenger actually be sued for? Surely not defamation, but TIT.

The captain has the final say, it is his/her responsibility!

[cjinchiangrai]

Criticizing the airline for an airport closure is silly. They have no control. Criticizing them for how they take care of the customers after that is a different issue. There does not appear to be a problem there.

 

[TigerandDog]

3 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

The captain has the final say, it is his/her responsibility!

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.

Edited February 2 by TigerandDog

[BKKBike09]

Here's another one that chose to hold at exactly the same time: SQ from Singapore. Only spent 30 mins in the hold.

 

 

[chrischronic]

I've seen this in other situations, and the poster usually deletes apologizes or doesn't stick to their original statement. Has anyone seen a case of someone not backing down? Would you back down, especially if in another country? Would they deport you if you are here on a legit long-term visa? 

[Graham8888]

7 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. 

 

 

You are joking? 

[Robbie2618]

I'm actually surprised to read comments on here defending Thai Airways. I guess it just shows the differences in culture how people think. Personally, I feel openly being able to voice your displeasure at a company or even someone personally if there involved in the trades is legitime way to get change and warn people. Sure, there will always be people like here in this case that defy common sense, no pilot is going to randomly divert unless there is a good reason. But the few that do speak nonsense should not stifle the voice of everyone with the threat of litigation or jail. Many companies have changed a policy or how they operate by exposing wrongdoing, many government agencies have been exposed wrongdoing by people speaking out. Take in the UK now with the Post Office scandal, the big kicker exposing this to the general public was the mini-series Mr. Bates Vs The Post Office. It played a significant role in drawing attention to the scandal influencing the course of the official inquiry. This show would be illegal under Thai law as it defames the post office as well as officials involved, and the general public would never know the scale of the injustice and much easier for the government to sweep it under the rug. For the greater good of society free speech is needed. 

 

Edited February 2 by Robbie2618

[Jonathan Swift]

7 hours ago, bbko said:

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

How does what the commenter said have anything to do with ego? Are you a psychiatrist? He interprets the story and makes a practical decision based on what he read to not do business with them. There were no emotions involved. As to ego, how's yours doing? Seems you have a high opinion of yourself as to the relevance and quality of your views. You sound like a sanctimonious bonehead to me. 

[10baht]

7 hours ago, Pouatchee said:

 there was some fog but not enough in my opinion to divert the flight.pretty spineless if you ask me.

 

 

So says Mr Aviation 🧑‍✈️ 555. please book me on the next flight you pilot.

[PETERTHEEATER]

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

Well the ministry of Finance own more than 50% of Thai airways and any decisions made would be a government

one wouldn't It?...

And the Minister of Finance is..........😀

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, bbko said:

A airline company taking legal action over a customer complaint? Wow, I would like to see the wording of the critique, but...

The passenger later deleted the original post and issued an apology after learning more about the complexities of aviation operations and the specific weather conditions that led to the captain’s decision. They expressed regret for the hastily written message and planned to apologise personally to the captain and Thai Airways management upon returning to Thailand

Their return ticket has probably been cancelled & they probably have a non refundable ticket and no insurance

[Pouatchee]

6 minutes ago, 10baht said:

So says Mr Aviation 🧑‍✈️ 555. please book me on the next flight you pilot.

 

so what about the pilots worldwide that land in near blizzard conditions? those are my 2 cents mr 10bht. book you on my next flight? i wouldnt give you a ride on my bicycle

[brianthainess]

Just as I said in a previous post, what would happen, and I'm guessing the passenger was Thai.

[sambum]

Diddums!

 

An apology not good enough? Thai Airways reputation, which is  already at an all time low will certainly not get any better with this spiteful attempt at "retribution". 

[sambum]

39 minutes ago, Robbie2618 said:

I'm actually surprised to read comments on here defending Thai Airways. I guess it just shows the differences in culture how people think. Personally, I feel openly being able to voice your displeasure at a company or even someone personally if there involved in the trades is legitime way to get change and warn people. Sure, there will always be people like here in this case that defy common sense, no pilot is going to randomly divert unless there is a good reason. But the few that do speak nonsense should not stifle the voice of everyone with the threat of litigation or jail. Many companies have changed a policy or how they operate by exposing wrongdoing, many government agencies have been exposed wrongdoing by people speaking out. Take in the UK now with the Post Office scandal, the big kicker exposing this to the general public was the mini-series Mr. Bates Vs The Post Office. It played a significant role in drawing attention to the scandal influencing the course of the official inquiry. This show would be illegal under Thai law as it defames the post office as well as officials involved, and the general public would never know the scale of the injustice and much easier for the government to sweep it under the rug. For the greater good of society free speech is needed. 

 

 

Hear, hear! The only problem is TIT!

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Pouatchee said:

so what about the pilots worldwide that land in near blizzard conditions? those are my 2 cents mr 10bht. book you on my next flight? i wouldnt give you a ride on my bicycle

Ignorance of the regulations does not provide a valid argument. 

 

There are various category landings and limits vary according the Aircraft and Airport. 

 

 

So.. where are these pilots worldwide that land in blizzard conditions ? (no visibility ?)

 

 

[Andycoops]

Another example of the Muppets in Thailand shooting themselves in the foot because of their fragile ego's.

 

After years of corruption and incompetent management this is clearly a PR disaster.

 

Their service stinks and I haven't flown on their over priced tickets for more than 15 years.

[ChipButty]

That nonsense on Trip advisor I dont think the hotel came out smelling of roses, even though I think the American guy was wrong.

[ChipButty]

1 minute ago, Andycoops said:

Another example of the Muppets in Thailand shooting themselves in the foot because of their fragile ego's.

 

After years of corruption and incompetent management this is clearly a PR disaster.

 

Their service stinks and I haven't flown on their over priced tickets for more than 15 years.

In my case it's been 23 years, 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, ChipButty said:

That nonsense on Trip advisor I dont think the hotel came out smelling of roses, even though I think the American guy was wrong.

 

Another own goal....     and while I agree with you, any business which as proven it will make such a foolish decision and sue customers is one that I really do not which to rely on.

[Brickleberry]

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

[tomazbodner]

It is not an easy decision for the captain to make to land at alternative airport. It is very costly for the airline (bussing passengers to their intended destination, additional airport fees, delayed or cancelled onward flights which often also mean hotel accommodation and wasting all the catering services costs).

 

But at the same time, captain is there to ensure safety of passengers. It is his decision whether he believes he can safely land, or concludes that might be risky.

 

Comparing with other airlines planes which have landed only gives the answer that technically it was possible to land. But what it doesn't answer is what was the condition of this aircraft. There are certain faults with which plane can take off, and pilots are just aware, and then there are faults that occur during the flights. There could be a mistake from get-go or something that has developed during flight, which could cause plane to be low on fuel, or have some instrument needed for ILS approach malfunctioning, which would make circling further, or landing into fog risky.

 

The above, however, does not excuse Thai Airways' heavy handed approach in suing their passenger for complaining about flight he paid for, but got dumped off on the wrong airport, especially after he took down the post and apologised - despite being over the top inappropriate, which I can only guess the passenger also realised. Consequences of such news hitting global media could be a death blow to Thai Airways' recovery efforts and future business.

 

It is unfortunate that THAI has started practicing one of most controversial and hated laws in this country to silence critics. I am willing to bet this will not avoid getting punished when they check their books 6 months or a year later.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

Need to know what the WX was at the time that caused the diversion (historic aerodrome forecasts - METARs - for 28 Jan at YMML).

 

Also need to know TG company policy on diverting. The TG flight was in the hold to north of Melbourne for one orbit and then went off to Sydney at 2047 UTC. 

 

A QF flight from HK entered the same hold very shortly after (2051 UTC) the TG flight departed and then held for 40 mins before continuing on to land at Melbourne.

 

59 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

Here's another one that chose to hold at exactly the same time: SQ from Singapore. Only spent 30 mins in the hold.

 

 

The reason for the diversion was due to poor weather and range...   The SQ flight may have had more available range to safely hold for longer.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

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

 

 

The diversion occurred on 28th Jan... not 1st Feb (as per your weather data above).

 

 

And this is why its not worth big businesses getting into petty online disputes with disgruntled customers, usually because of all the inaccuracy, misunderstandings, false information etc...  

 

Its just not worth getting dragged down to that level...   

 

 

 

Edited February 2 by richard_smith237

[Thaindrew]

7 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.

 

well the statement was made in Australia where there is freedom of speech and not the same defamation law, they going to sue in Australia or is it all hot air?

[Pdavies99]

Thai Airways...creating a good impression! Sue the passengers!

 

As they say

 

"Dumb as dumb can be!"