Thai Airways To Sue Pad For 20 Billion Baht

[jdinasia]

I think Thai Airways is not only calculating the lost fuel. And they're not only calculating losses in the next 12 months, but also in the future. Plus, if you take the time to look up who owns Thai Airways, I think it's quite easy to predict the verdict on this one in the courts.

Dont beat around the bush, come out and say it (or shut up about it)

Since he wasn't going to come out and say it .. I did There is no need to whisper and hint when it is a publicly listed company but then you couldn't build on the farfetched conspiracy theories and instead would just have to stick to facts!

[erobando]

Interesting ! So: the majority of the shares are owned by a Thai ministry and thus bought with tax money from the people of Thailand...nobody else's money.

The problem for those same people is that if Thai Airways goes under the airline has to be saved, one way or another, or to be merged with another airline.

In both cases it will cost more substantial cash and guess where THAT has to come from -again- ?

It's AGAIN the Thai population who loses and it's AGAIN the elite and military who won because they don't care who loses, as long as it's not THEM....but the poor.

LaoPo

Huh? If tax payer money is needed to bailout Thai Airways, how would this be a burden on the poor?

They don't pay income tax. Even lower middle class people in Thailand don't pay income tax.

[jdinasia]

Interesting ! So: the majority of the shares are owned by a Thai ministry and thus bought with tax money from the people of Thailand...nobody else's money.

The problem for those same people is that if Thai Airways goes under the airline has to be saved, one way or another, or to be merged with another airline.

In both cases it will cost more substantial cash and guess where THAT has to come from -again- ?

It's AGAIN the Thai population who loses and it's AGAIN the elite and military who won because they don't care who loses, as long as it's not THEM....but the poor.

LaoPo

Huh? If tax payer money is needed to bailout Thai Airways, how would this be a burden on the poor?

They don't pay income tax. Even lower middle class people in Thailand don't pay income tax.

Well if you make the erroneous assumption that it would come out of the Government budget, and that those same funds would have been spent on the poor, thou could make a case for it. However, in this case it isn't likely that a bailout will be needed OR that this case will go through. Instead, this is about Press Time ... TG sends up some flags to get attention that they are against the events that happened in Swampy, their home airport! The case goes on for a little while then disappears or gets dismissed, but TG looks good on the international AND local scene.

(Didn't we see TG staff bringing things to the PAD?)

[samgrowth]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

[animatic]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Buy and hold is good investment.

So, buy some more, no where to go but up.

[jdinasia]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Well you would have to show that the PAD was the cause of the loss Tough sell if you look at the history and market trends!

(in July it was trading at 20) ......

Edited December 3, 2008 by jdinasia

[mrtoad]

Yeah, I bet Sonthi is quaking in his boots . They no bloody chance of getting a penny, sorry Satang.

[mommysboy]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Well you would have to show that the PAD was the cause of the loss Tough sell if you look at the history and market trends!

(in July it was trading at 20) ......

You and your figures JD- the main point is that PAD have caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act.

[mrtoad]

Good luck Thai Air! I wonder if other airlines will follow suit?

FF

I think Thai Air should go after the ones bankrolled PAD. They are the one part of conspiracy to do all these

That ain't going to happen for sure.

[jdinasia]

Good luck Thai Air! I wonder if other airlines will follow suit?

FF

I think Thai Air should go after the ones bankrolled PAD. They are the one part of conspiracy to do all these

That ain't going to happen for sure.

Help me out here, who are they?

[jdinasia]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Well you would have to show that the PAD was the cause of the loss Tough sell if you look at the history and market trends!

(in July it was trading at 20) ......

You and your figures JD- the main point is that PAD have caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act.

Have they? I know that s your opinion but I am also pretty sure that no court has made that ruling. I am sorry if FACTS make you reply with "you and your figures"! What would you prefer I respond with? People in this very thread were hinting at things that just are not true and that nobody bothered to respond to (out of misplaced fear?) So I responded with the simple facts available from either THAI or the SET

[mrtoad]

Good luck Thai Air! I wonder if other airlines will follow suit?

FF

I think Thai Air should go after the ones bankrolled PAD. They are the one part of conspiracy to do all these

That ain't going to happen for sure.

Help me out here, who are they?

JD, this is the problem, how can you sue something like the PAD? No one knows for sure who bankrolled them, and even if they did, would they pursue it? To be honest it doesn't make any difference, as in effect it's a loosely based activist group. If anyone could or should be sued, Sonthi would be high on the list, but given the fact that he is pretty used to that, he ain't going to give a shit.

As for Thai Airways they needed to make a statement; they need to be seen to be doing something, even if they have no intention of following it through, just like the whole extradition thing with Thaksin.

[Journalist]

I think TG does have a case, but its something they should take up with AOT or their insurers.

\

[mommysboy]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Well you would have to show that the PAD was the cause of the loss Tough sell if you look at the history and market trends!

(in July it was trading at 20) ......

You and your figures JD- the main point is that PAD have caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act.

Have they? I know that s your opinion but I am also pretty sure that no court has made that ruling. I am sorry if FACTS make you reply with "you and your figures"! What would you prefer I respond with? People in this very thread were hinting at things that just are not true and that nobody bothered to respond to (out of misplaced fear?) So I responded with the simple facts available from either THAI or the SET

Well I'm a bit pushed for time at present and haven't had chance to view your posting, but at first sight you seem to be suggesting that PAD have not caused any damage to THAI. Is that correct?

[jdinasia]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Well you would have to show that the PAD was the cause of the loss Tough sell if you look at the history and market trends!

(in July it was trading at 20) ......

You and your figures JD- the main point is that PAD have caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act.

Have they? I know that s your opinion but I am also pretty sure that no court has made that ruling. I am sorry if FACTS make you reply with "you and your figures"! What would you prefer I respond with? People in this very thread were hinting at things that just are not true and that nobody bothered to respond to (out of misplaced fear?) So I responded with the simple facts available from either THAI or the SET

Well I'm a bit pushed for time at present and haven't had chance to view your posting, but at first sight you seem to be suggesting that PAD have not caused any damage to THAI. Is that correct?

Nope .. didn't say that at all ... I stated that it is your opinion that PAD "caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act." As far as I am aware that is not accurate YET. (not to mention that it could be argued that the Gov't caused the loss in failing to prevent this, or that Thaksin's antics are the cause.

[mommysboy]

TG is a public listed compnay. I am STUPlD enough to bought some sgares at around 50 Baht not too long ago. Today it is only worth 7. As a shareholder, can I sue PAD?

Well you would have to show that the PAD was the cause of the loss Tough sell if you look at the history and market trends!

(in July it was trading at 20) ......

You and your figures JD- the main point is that PAD have caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act.

Have they? I know that s your opinion but I am also pretty sure that no court has made that ruling. I am sorry if FACTS make you reply with "you and your figures"! What would you prefer I respond with? People in this very thread were hinting at things that just are not true and that nobody bothered to respond to (out of misplaced fear?) So I responded with the simple facts available from either THAI or the SET

Well I'm a bit pushed for time at present and haven't had chance to view your posting, but at first sight you seem to be suggesting that PAD have not caused any damage to THAI. Is that correct?

Nope .. didn't say that at all ... I stated that it is your opinion that PAD "caused a tangible loss of money to THAI through an illegal act." As far as I am aware that is not accurate YET. (not to mention that it could be argued that the Gov't caused the loss in failing to prevent this, or that Thaksin's antics are the cause.

The main point here is that THAI has lost money due to the direct and illegal actions of PAD. Quite how a figure is to be placed on that loss I don't know. But the fact that the statistics will be complex doesn't detract from that main point, to argue any different is absurd IMHO. I do accept however that the old rule of TIT still applies, so logic and reason may go out the window. I still haven't fully reviewed your postings so sorry if I'm missing something here.

[jdinasia]

Mommysboy ---- it is your assertion that the PAD caused loss due to "Illegal actions" ... and it may well be that they did not commit illegal actions. Read it again (Maybe they did, Maybe the Gov't did, Maybe Thaksin did .. but until a court rules on it then it is merely your opinion of what happened)

It is easy to run with the ... "BUT THEY -----"

But if they are merely found guilty of trespass, or illegal assembly during a SoE etc .. then they could likely walk away from almost any lawsuit. It wouldn't be hard for them to present a strong argument that the Gov't's failure to act was the real problem. you are talking about the law .. not a moral viewpoint that obviously other people may not share.

Edited December 3, 2008 by jdinasia

[mommysboy]

Mommysboy ---- it is your assertion that the PAD caused loss due to "Illegal actions" ... and it may well be that they did not commit illegal actions. Read it again (Maybe they did, Maybe the Gov't did, Maybe Thaksin did .. but until a court rules on it then it is merely your opinion of what happened)

It is easy to run with the ... "BUT THEY -----"

But if they are merely found guilty of trespass, or illegal assembly during a SoE etc .. then they could likely walk away from almost any lawsuit. It wouldn't be hard for them to present a strong argument that the Gov't's failure to act was the real problem. you are talking about the law .. not a moral viewpoint that obviously other people may not share.

You missed your vocation JD - modern politician or lawyer springs to mind.

It looks black and white, open and shut to me.

[jdinasia]

Not to me ..... and of course you know what JD could mean right? (it doesn't in my case though).

This wouldn't be an "OPEN and SHUT case" anywhere that I know of.

again you are discussing the law and NOT your moral views

Edited December 3, 2008 by jdinasia

[rainman]

Mommysboy ---- it is your assertion that the PAD caused loss due to "Illegal actions" ... and it may well be that they did not commit illegal actions.

So in your opinion, it may be legal to seize one of the world's largest airports with armed guards?

I can't imagine any law of any country under which this may me legal. Maybe Mickey Mouse Land?

Wait, here it comes .....

Edited December 3, 2008 by rainman

[jdinasia]

Mommysboy ---- it is your assertion that the PAD caused loss due to "Illegal actions" ... and it may well be that they did not commit illegal actions.

So in your opinion, it may be legal to seize one of the world's largest airports with armed guards?

I can't imagine any law of any country under which this may me legal. Maybe Mickey Mouse Land?

Wait, here it comes .....

I'll let you read through this whole thread then get back to you about this when you address what what written and how it was written.

[spongeman]

I bet PAD's sponsors (DTAC/Bangkok Bank/Thai bev) are saying.........OH <deleted>

[LaoPo]

Hmmmm you seem to be leaving out the rest of the owners LaoPo just because you want to rant about the PAD. It would appear that it would be the taxpayers would shoulder the majority of the damages here but just barely ....

TG is the National carrier ----

I didn't even use the letters PAD in my message ...YOU did. You seem not to be able to post a single post without bringing the PAD or Thaksin in, do you ? It looks like the letters PAD are tatooed in your brain and you can't accept a single negative posting about the PAD.

Care to explain why you are such a supporter of the PAD...Mr. Sondhi's brainchild ? I'm very curious.

And, I left the other Thai Airways shareholders out because it doesn't make any sense to even talk about minority share holders if the Ministry holds a majority. The majority owners of any company decide, not the minority holders.

But who cares about a poorly ran airline anyway; not me since they're about to go under anyway... I just feel sad for Thailand and it's people who have to pay the bills.

You only seem to care for the middle class, elite and military since you keep on defending PAD and the mysterious entities, hidden in the woods who pay the bills for Sondhi...

LaoPo

[ThaiVoltaire]

I don't think anything will come of it. It is a face-saving effort by Thai. Maybe they should just get rid of all of the employees who abandoned their customers when PAD entered the airport. That sure told me a lot of how much a traveller can depend upon Thai's employees when you really may need them. They could have at least stayed around to give the stranded group as much help as possible. Instead, they ran! OR maybe they were actually PAD supporters.

[samgrowth]

I bet PAD's sponsors (DTAC/Bangkok Bank/Thai bev) are saying.........OH <deleted>

THAI is a PLC, so they have to file that as a formality. However, everythings stops there. The court is going to ignore it for the sake of National Securities. THAI is not expecting a reply from the court. Bad luck to all share holders.

[Ricardo]

Mommysboy ---- it is your assertion that the PAD caused loss due to "Illegal actions" ... and it may well be that they did not commit illegal actions. Read it again (Maybe they did, Maybe the Gov't did, Maybe Thaksin did .. but until a court rules on it then it is merely your opinion of what happened)

It is easy to run with the ... "BUT THEY -----"

But if they are merely found guilty of trespass, or illegal assembly during a SoE etc .. then they could likely walk away from almost any lawsuit. It wouldn't be hard for them to present a strong argument that the Gov't's failure to act was the real problem. you are talking about the law .. not a moral viewpoint that obviously other people may not share.

You missed your vocation JD - modern politician or lawyer springs to mind.

It looks black and white, open and shut to me.

Black and white ? Not when lawyers are involved !

I suspect that it was the AoT who declared the airport shut, not the PAD, and an airline's case would therefore be with them. Of course the AoT or their insurers might then have a case, against the PAD, to recover costs ?

But TiT, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a result, I mean look how long it has taken to bring Thaksin to court, and he's still stringing most of those cases along rather than resolve them.

[tartempion]

Sondhi has 100+ cases at court and rarely loose.

I know it is nonsense, but it will work in Thailand. He hold a peaceful (not my thinking but it will be accepted by the court) demonstration outside of the airport. The airport boss shut down the airport for security reason (that is fact) and not PAD.

That PAD take it complete and also the tower was later when it was shut already.

I was at Swampy airport the 25th from noon to 17h.

After 16h the airport became unreachable by car due to a thousand PAD cars blocking the large exit road towards Swampy.

( I saw the blocked access roads when my flight left at 17h)

Understandably the airport boss shut down a unreachable place, I guess near empty planes left Swampy that night, booked passengers unable to check-in.

I just don't understand why he did not cut off electricity (aircon) and water (to preserve the airport's infrastructure or to allow The PAD to remain there long time? )

[tartempion]

double post deleted

Edited December 4, 2008 by tartempion

[geriatrickid]

It is highly unlikely Thai would stop flying or be allowed to collapse. For the benefit of those that are unaware of TG's ownership, 51% is controlled by the ministry of Finance, 17% is held by the two Vayupak funds and another 2% is held by the Government Savings Bank. ( FYI -TG also has a 39% stake in Nok Air)

Approx. 80% of TG's revenue was derived from passengers. Thanks to PAD, and the continuing political uncertainty, it should be expected that PAX revenue will nosedive.

It's a possibility that it might undergo "reorganization" and "debt restructuring" Aside from route curtailments, service cutbacks and layoffs, this could result in TG default upon some hull lease contracts. Default seems unlikely because that would result in equipment being seized, which would benefit no one because TG would be unable to fly and not generate money with which to pay its lease finance agreements. Besides, the leasing companies are awash with equipment and don't want anymore.

I would however expect 2 events;

1. Cancellation or deferment of the airbus contracts and,

2. An attempt to negogiate the current lease agreement interest charges.

Guess who would stuck with that loss? EU and USA taxpayers. Why? Because AIG has ownership of one of the largest aircraft leasing companies in the world. As well, GE and some of the EU banks have stakes in the leasing companies. With the bailouts of banks and AIG, the taxpayers in several EU countries as well as the USA will get stuck with the financial ripple effect. Airbus export contracts are indirectly funded by the EU countries that have an investment stake in EADS.

Reneging on interest charges and aircraft delivery penalties would have less impact upon Thailand since the leases aren't held by Thai investors or taxpayers. In order to make the certain passing off of debt, it would seem suing for the financial injury would serve to demonstrate that TG tried to get the money before it resorted to debt restructuring.

[LaoPo]

It is highly unlikely Thai would stop flying or be allowed to collapse. For the benefit of those that are unaware of TG's ownership, 51% is controlled by the ministry of Finance, 17% is held by the two Vayupak funds and another 2% is held by the Government Savings Bank. ( FYI -TG also has a 39% stake in Nok Air)

Approx. 80% of TG's revenue was derived from passengers. Thanks to PAD, and the continuing political uncertainty, it should be expected that PAX revenue will nosedive.

It's a possibility that it might undergo "reorganization" and "debt restructuring" Aside from route curtailments, service cutbacks and layoffs, this could result in TG default upon some hull lease contracts. Default seems unlikely because that would result in equipment being seized, which would benefit no one because TG would be unable to fly and not generate money with which to pay its lease finance agreements. Besides, the leasing companies are awash with equipment and don't want anymore.

I would however expect 2 events;

1. Cancellation or deferment of the airbus contracts and,

2. An attempt to negogiate the current lease agreement interest charges.

Guess who would stuck with that loss? EU and USA taxpayers. Why? Because AIG has ownership of one of the largest aircraft leasing companies in the world. As well, GE and some of the EU banks have stakes in the leasing companies. With the bailouts of banks and AIG, the taxpayers in several EU countries as well as the USA will get stuck with the financial ripple effect. Airbus export contracts are indirectly funded by the EU countries that have an investment stake in EADS.

Reneging on interest charges and aircraft delivery penalties would have less impact upon Thailand since the leases aren't held by Thai investors or taxpayers. In order to make the certain passing off of debt, it would seem suing for the financial injury would serve to demonstrate that TG tried to get the money before it resorted to debt restructuring.

Why would it be unlikely ? MUCH larger companies are on the edge of bankruptcy right now and if a badly organized airline like TG doesn't make but lose money it's time to either go under or to merge with another airline company who DO KNOW how to run an airline like Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific just to name a few.

And, there are also other airlines, much bigger than TG who are talking mergers, like Ozzies' pride Qantas talking with British Airways right now. France -Air France- and The Netherlands with it's -KLM- did the same and merged and were both, individually, much larger than TG.

Maybe it's the -FALSE- national pride but nobody can live and survive from a plate full of pride, so either they will continue pumping money into TG till someone says: "Hey...enough is enough" and realizes they can't continue, or they go under.

The latter is probably best and TG will merge (what's left of it) with another airline.

LaoPo