Thai Airways Sues Pad For B575 Million

[sabaijai]

Some people think that the AOT or its chief officers should be among the defendants for their compliance in the Suvarnabhumi takeover.

There's also a line of thought that Thaksin told his cronies on the AOT board to relinquish the airport, knowing it would backfire on the PAD leadership.

Which people are these? Any supporting details? I suppose the PAD leadership thinks that way.Is that what you mean?

As to the "line of thought" any details on who might hold it?

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

[slimdog]

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

It is irrellevent as to whether or not AOT handed over the airport or the airport was seized.

AOT filed for an injuction the following morning demanding that the PAD leadership immediately leave the airport. After giving the two sides all day to enter into negotiations, the injunction was formally granted at 5.00 pm. From that moment, all actions by the PAD leadership were illegal and in contempt of court.

All Thai Airways needs to prove is that during this period additional costs arose as a direct consequence of the failure for the PAD leadership to abide by the injunction.

[jayboy]

Some people think that the AOT or its chief officers should be among the defendants for their compliance in the Suvarnabhumi takeover.

There's also a line of thought that Thaksin told his cronies on the AOT board to relinquish the airport, knowing it would backfire on the PAD leadership.

Which people are these? Any supporting details? I suppose the PAD leadership thinks that way.Is that what you mean?

As to the "line of thought" any details on who might hold it?

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

And did the foreign correspondents publish details of this interpretation anywhere at the time or subsequently (or just confine their insights to you)?

I have no idea what a "defense councilor" is but if you say so, so be it.Sounds more like PAD paranoia to me but what do I know?

[Old Man River]

Some people think that the AOT or its chief officers should be among the defendants for their compliance in the Suvarnabhumi takeover.

There's also a line of thought that Thaksin told his cronies on the AOT board to relinquish the airport, knowing it would backfire on the PAD leadership.

Which people are these? Any supporting details? I suppose the PAD leadership thinks that way.Is that what you mean?

As to the "line of thought" any details on who might hold it?

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

And did the foreign correspondents publish details of this interpretation anywhere at the time or subsequently (or just confine their insights to you)?

Jayboy, several posts back I published my opinion on this, but to repeat, while I have never supported the PAD's actions, it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD. I included the post below to show that the AOT allowed cargo flights prior to the full opening of the airport for passenger flights. I think there is enough media support available that shows that the AOT closed the airport to passenger flights, not the PAD, who never blocked people from boarding flights nor blocked the runways (hence, the cargo flights).

From my perspective, I fully understood the AOT's position as I doubt their insurance carriers would have honored claims for accidents for any reason during the PAD's occupation. I don't think, from a business perspective, the AOT had a choice but to close the airport, but since it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD, I think Thai Airways made a huge mistake in not including the AOT in its lawsuit.

Strictly, as it relates to the court case, I think it is going to be very difficult for Thai Airways to prove that the PAD actions were responsible for keeping flights from taking off and landing.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/02...es_30090021.php

[animatic]

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

It is irrellevent as to whether or not AOT handed over the airport or the airport was seized.

AOT filed for an injuction the following morning demanding that the PAD leadership immediately leave the airport. After giving the two sides all day to enter into negotiations, the injunction was formally granted at 5.00 pm. From that moment, all actions by the PAD leadership were illegal and in contempt of court.

All Thai Airways needs to prove is that during this period additional costs arose as a direct consequence of the failure for the PAD leadership to abide by the injunction.

But they immediately appealed the injunction, so that adds to the mix.

And then saying the injunction was politically motivated; ad infinitum.

A ball of wax waiting to shed layers for years to come.

[Publicus]

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

It is irrellevent as to whether or not AOT handed over the airport or the airport was seized.

AOT filed for an injuction the following morning demanding that the PAD leadership immediately leave the airport. After giving the two sides all day to enter into negotiations, the injunction was formally granted at 5.00 pm. From that moment, all actions by the PAD leadership were illegal and in contempt of court.

All Thai Airways needs to prove is that during this period additional costs arose as a direct consequence of the failure for the PAD leadership to abide by the injunction.

No, that's not all that needs to be proved.

Whether the airport was closed by the AOT or seized by a crowd is both relevant and material to the suit.

The question of whether AOT surrendered the airport is central to the case.

Whether AOT abandoned the airport is a vital legal question in the suit, as it is the responsibility of the AOT to possess and operate the facility, to control and direct its operations to include personnel, passengers, airlines, their aircraft, to assure other governments their citizens are safe and secure etc.   

If the certified officials abandoned their responsibility, they must be held accountable in accordance with their individual contracts and in respect to public safety, the conduct of commerce and a host of other matters central to the operation of an international airport.

If the crowd seized the airport, whether by force or simply by overwhelming mass, then AOT officials need to state how and why they failed in their responsibilities and obligations to maintain their control of the airport.

In either event, the inunction would be valid. However, the circumstances that led to it are per se separate, pertinent, relevant and material. 

AOT is accountable for the loss of the airport, the only questions are the specifics for which AOT must be held accountable.

 

[Sheryl]

In the unlikely event they win this suit, any chance I would finally get the refund they owe me when I was forced to return overland? LOL!

I gave up calling them when it reached the point where the cost of all the calls to Bkk had exceeded the amount of money in question....

[jayboy]

Whether AOT abandoned the airport is a vital legal question in the suit, as it is the responsibility of the AOT to possess and operate the facility, to control and direct its operations to include personnel, passengers, airlines, their aircraft, to assure other governments their citizens are safe and secure etc.

If the certified officials abandoned their responsibility, they must be held accountable in accordance with their individual contracts and in respect to public safety, the conduct of commerce and a host of other matters central to the operation of an international airport.

It was precisely for the purpose of ensuring safety that the AOT shut the airport down.Frankly your dishonest drivel doesn't warrant a serious response but there may be some who would welcome a summary of events.For this would recommend the account given by Pasuk/Chris Baker (the second expanded edition of "Thaksin" pp340-342).Key points:

1.Airport closed on grounds of safety

2.Minimal effort of security forces to prevent invasion by the yellow mob.

3.Recognition however that counter stroke dangerous because of thousands of tourists held as hostages.350,000 travellers stranded

4.Border Patrol Police and military units sent by General Anupong to prevent police from dispersing mob.

5.After speeded up court ruling (defence statements truncated), parties dissolved and army "whipped its rogue bulldog into line".End of occupation followed.

6.Bank of Thailand estimated airport seizure cost country 290 billion baht equivalent to 3% of GDP.

7.Simple clean up costs were Baht 20 million.The building's Brahma imaged had been damaged.Offices looted of computers,TVs,amulets,cameras,Buddha images and other valuables.Cars and motorcycles stolen.Police cache of guns and ammunition gone missing.

8.Searches found krathom and other drugs and small bomb making factory.Dredging the adjacent canal brought up iron pipes,swords,home made guns and other weaponry (my assumption:presumably ditched by the PAD thugs)

[jayboy]

Jayboy, several posts back I published my opinion on this, but to repeat, while I have never supported the PAD's actions, it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD. I included the post below to show that the AOT allowed cargo flights prior to the full opening of the airport for passenger flights. I think there is enough media support available that shows that the AOT closed the airport to passenger flights, not the PAD, who never blocked people from boarding flights nor blocked the runways (hence, the cargo flights).

From my perspective, I fully understood the AOT's position as I doubt their insurance carriers would have honored claims for accidents for any reason during the PAD's occupation. I don't think, from a business perspective, the AOT had a choice but to close the airport, but since it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD, I think Thai Airways made a huge mistake in not including the AOT in its lawsuit.

Strictly, as it relates to the court case, I think it is going to be very difficult for Thai Airways to prove that the PAD actions were responsible for keeping flights from taking off and landing.

OMR, I entirely take your point (and agree the arguments supporting it).It's an issue for lawyers to debate but I have a strong feeling the case will fizzle to nothing.This matter can't be settled in Thailand given the cast of characters involved.I have made some comments in response to Publicus's disgraceful post by way of background.

[Credo]

Thanks jayboy. Of course the AOT had no choice but to close the airport. The mob that assembled there did so illegally and they interefered with the operation of the airport, thus necessitating the closure. Will the PAD be held responsible? Difficult to know. I don't necessarily agree with Publicus, but from a legal point of view, there are some very pertinent points.

There is so much blame to go around with regard to the airport fiasco.

[tw25rw]

The AOT aren't a security force. Maybe they have a few guards with whistles and cleaners with mops, but if the police/army and whoever else is charged with airport protection are operating a kid gloves policy, there was little point trying to defend against a mob with backing in high places.

Once the mob were settled in, there was no realistic way of keeping passenger flights moving because if the security forces wouldn't touch them, there was no way of keeping secure areas secure.

I hope the other airlines that use BKK/DMK/HKT as a hub join in this action. Foreign airlines lost money, but the local airlines were effective out of business for the duration of the siege.

[Publicus]

Whether AOT abandoned the airport is a vital legal question in the suit, as it is the responsibility of the AOT to possess and operate the facility, to control and direct its operations to include personnel, passengers, airlines, their aircraft, to assure other governments their citizens are safe and secure etc.

If the certified officials abandoned their responsibility, they must be held accountable in accordance with their individual contracts and in respect to public safety, the conduct of commerce and a host of other matters central to the operation of an international airport.

It was precisely for the purpose of ensuring safety that the AOT shut the airport down.Frankly your dishonest drivel doesn't warrant a serious response but there may be some who would welcome a summary of events.For this would recommend the account given by Pasuk/Chris Baker (the second expanded edition of "Thaksin" pp340-342).Key points:

1.Airport closed on grounds of safety

2.Minimal effort of security forces to prevent invasion by the yellow mob.

3.Recognition however that counter stroke dangerous because of thousands of tourists held as hostages.350,000 travellers stranded

4.Border Patrol Police and military units sent by General Anupong to prevent police from dispersing mob.

5.After speeded up court ruling (defence statements truncated), parties dissolved and army "whipped its rogue bulldog into line".End of occupation followed.

6.Bank of Thailand estimated airport seizure cost country 290 billion baht equivalent to 3% of GDP.

7.Simple clean up costs were Baht 20 million.The building's Brahma imaged had been damaged.Offices looted of computers,TVs,amulets,cameras,Buddha images and other valuables.Cars and motorcycles stolen.Police cache of guns and ammunition gone missing.

8.Searches found krathom and other drugs and small bomb making factory.Dredging the adjacent canal brought up iron pipes,swords,home made guns and other weaponry (my assumption:presumably ditched by the PAD thugs)

You have quite a way of putting things, such as "dishonest drivel" which cause your arguments to be self defeating. Pasuk and Baker are excellent so I read their books and give close attention to their statements as so many others do, however, I would not claim the two to be definitive or final authorities. They are simply the most prominent and accessable analysts and wordsmiths to we farang in particular. Your absolute worship of Pasuk and Baker causes you to think and believe more is final and settled than it is.

The questions I raise are not mine alone. The questions and issues I present are valid legal questions which need to be settled in a court of law, not in someone's book or seminar. The questions I present are but a tiny few of the legal issues which the suit raises, were the suit ever actually to see the light of day in a court of law.

Fundamentalist thump the bible, others thump Pasuk and Baker. It (erroneously) follows that fundamentalists are never wrong, nor could they be. Pasuk and Baker and their take on things Thai are must reading, but they are not voices that thunder from the biblical sky. Grow up. Learn to respect that, even if only sometimes, there can be some validity to the perspectives and arguments of others.

[Scott]

There is a good and lively discussion going on here, so let's be careful not to flame or degrade other posters. It really detracts from the arguments.

Let's try and stick to the arguments, not the arguer.

[Xangsamhua]

Jayboy,

I don't think Pasuk and Baker have much to contribute to discussion of the PAD and its alleged offences. They seem to have descended into cliche.

I suspect, given the emotions of the time and the unreliability of the reportage on damage etc, weapons found etc, whether at the airport or at Government House, that their claims under 7. and 8. in your post are quite spurious.

Having looked through the expanded version of the book, I decided not to buy it. Not having it in front of me, I am open to correction. However, my thoughts on browsing through it are here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Yellow-Pale-...l=yellow+orange

What you say about PAD may be correct. What Pasuk and Baker say may be correct, but they don't seem to back their assertions with evidence. They might be more convincing if their language were less emotive. (With respect, I suggest your use of phrases such as "dishonest drivel" does not help your cause either.)

Edited December 13, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[jayboy]

Jayboy,

I don't think Pasuk and Baker have much to contribute to discussion of the PAD and its alleged offences. They seem to have descended into cliche.

I suspect, given the emotions of the time and the unreliability of the reportage on damage etc, weapons found etc, whether at the airport or at Government House, that their claims under 7. and 8. in your post are quite spurious.

Having looked through the expanded version of the book, I decided not to buy it. Not having it in front of me, I am open to correction. However, my thoughts on browsing through it are here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Yellow-Pale-...l=yellow+orange

What you say about PAD may be correct. What Pasuk and Baker say may be correct, but they don't seem to back their assertions with evidence. They might be more convincing if their language were less emotive. (With respect, I suggest your use of phrases such as "dishonest drivel" does not help your cause either.)

They are serious historians and the book has been very recently revised so there's a certain weight to their narrative, as you might discover if you bothered to actually read it.The emotive language you refer to is probably mine rather than theirs.More generally you are simply wrong to think they don't have much to contribute to discussion of PAD.On the airport seizure I will grant you at least half a point.There's never a complete consensus on matters of this kind.And you are right I should have come up with a politer way of describing what I consider to be a disgraceful post.

[jayboy]

You have quite a way of putting things, such as "dishonest drivel" which cause your arguments to be self defeating. Pasuk and Baker are excellent so I read their books and give close attention to their statements as so many others do, however, I would not claim the two to be definitive or final authorities. They are simply the most prominent and accessable analysts and wordsmiths to we farang in particular. Your absolute worship of Pasuk and Baker causes you to think and believe more is final and settled than it is.

The questions I raise are not mine alone. The questions and issues I present are valid legal questions which need to be settled in a court of law, not in someone's book or seminar. The questions I present are but a tiny few of the legal issues which the suit raises, were the suit ever actually to see the light of day in a court of law.

Fundamentalist thump the bible, others thump Pasuk and Baker. It (erroneously) follows that fundamentalists are never wrong, nor could they be. Pasuk and Baker and their take on things Thai are must reading, but they are not voices that thunder from the biblical sky. Grow up. Learn to respect that, even if only sometimes, there can be some validity to the perspectives and arguments of others.

I think you are right that we are fortunate to have Pasuk and Baker as contemporary historians of Thailand, and accessibility is certain part of that attraction.There are many other foreign and Thai historians and political scientists commenting on recent developments.Those who follow Bangkok Pundit or New Mandala will know exactly who I mean.Frankly they don't lend themselves for attribution because in almost every case to do so would eventually result in me being breaching forum rules. Baker/Pasuk are generally middle of the road though strongly anti-Thaksin.Though it is puerile to say I worship them they remain the best available touchstone.

If you can provide details of respected Thai specialists, whether historians or social scientists, who support reactionary policies let's hear about them.

If your post was just a layman's random musings on some legal issues to be addressed if the case ever came to trial (which I agree it won't) so be it.However it came across in a different way altogether.

[Publicus]

We all can argue till the buffalo come home, the reality is that in a legal dispute a court of law makes the findings of fact. An appeal court accepts the lower court's finding of fact, focusing only on process, procedure and findings of law, the judge's decisions/rulings, fair trial etc.

Consensus has to do with public opinion, such as at this forum. True, consensus does not exist here on the facts of the airport closure nor will it ever exist. That's what makes this forum a forum. There is a consensus at the forum that the Thai Airways case is unlikely ever to make it to trial.

Some of us have a focus on which are the legal matters the court would need to decide, what some of the questions are that the court would need to consider and on which to rule, while others focus on popular consensus. I don't see any problem with either focus or approach.  

Edited December 13, 2009 by Publicus

[Xangsamhua]

Jayboy,

I don't think Pasuk and Baker have much to contribute to discussion of the PAD and its alleged offences. They seem to have descended into cliche.

I suspect, given the emotions of the time and the unreliability of the reportage on damage etc, weapons found etc, whether at the airport or at Government House, that their claims under 7. and 8. in your post are quite spurious.

Having looked through the expanded version of the book, I decided not to buy it. Not having it in front of me, I am open to correction. However, my thoughts on browsing through it are here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Yellow-Pale-...l=yellow+orange

What you say about PAD may be correct. What Pasuk and Baker say may be correct, but they don't seem to back their assertions with evidence. They might be more convincing if their language were less emotive. (With respect, I suggest your use of phrases such as "dishonest drivel" does not help your cause either.)

They are serious historians and the book has been very recently revised so there's a certain weight to their narrative, as you might discover if you bothered to actually read it.The emotive language you refer to is probably mine rather than theirs.More generally you are simply wrong to think they don't have much to contribute to discussion of PAD.On the airport seizure I will grant you at least half a point.There's never a complete consensus on matters of this kind.And you are right I should have come up with a politer way of describing what I consider to be a disgraceful post.

Jayboy, I'm sure you're right that I should read the whole book (I've read the 2004 edition twice), but, in "browsing", I did in fact "read" chunks of the expanded part.

The emotive language I referred to was not yours, but theirs, e.g. "blatant violence" when there was precious little evidence for such an assertion in the pages referred to in their index. I'm on thin ice here, because I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe somewhere around p. 362 they actually talk about PAD "thugs", the favorite term of abuse among anti-PAD writers in the Western media and TV.com.

I agree with you that Pasuk and Baker are substantial contributors to economic, political and historical issues in Thailand (I've read their History of Thailand). I just think they've lapsed a bit in their discussion of the PAD, but as I've said, I have my own biases.

The danger in any discussion now of reds, yellows and the like is that the cliches and incantations have taken on a life of their own. The leaders, their supporters and the cause/s they fight for have become caricatures, and we sometimes think the caricatures are the reality. Perhaps we need to be a bit sympathetic to both sides in order to have a clearer view.

[Oberkommando]

You are trying to paint it like a large group of masked and armed individuals arrived at the airport and pushed their way through and started setting up roadblocks, hindering people from reaching their check-in ques in the hall etc - that is not how it went down and we could see it basically live on TV when it happened, if you remember. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands will dig through the Thai Youtube submissions and find some good clips showing just what kind of people that was the brute of the sit-in in the airport and what kind of non-danger the normal tourists inside it was in.

I am not trying to "paint it" anything.

How it went down was the paramilitaries arrived, set up roadblocks across the main thoroughfares and then the yellow shirts arrived and set up camp outside the terminal building. I witnessed them setting up those roadblocks with my own eyes. Not second hand on TV, nor on the internet, but with my own eyes as I was at the airport that day.

This is absolute fact, despite your best efforts to try and deny it.

As I have already pointed out, the armed and masked men arrived before the main group of protesters, and were largely in control of security throughout the operation.

If you think old women and kids with hand clappers could have organised, planned and carried out such an operation that you will see on YouTube, as well as the beatings, intimidation, vehicle spot-checks and even murder that went down during the occupation then you are sadly mistaken.

[tw25rw]

Having the old women/kids there was a good tactic. No one would lay a finger on them and if they did, they would look like the bad guys. The red shirts didn't learn that lesson.

[TAWP]

You are trying to paint it like a large group of masked and armed individuals arrived at the airport and pushed their way through and started setting up roadblocks, hindering people from reaching their check-in ques in the hall etc - that is not how it went down and we could see it basically live on TV when it happened, if you remember. I'm sure someone with more time on their hands will dig through the Thai Youtube submissions and find some good clips showing just what kind of people that was the brute of the sit-in in the airport and what kind of non-danger the normal tourists inside it was in.

I am not trying to "paint it" anything.

How it went down was the paramilitaries arrived, set up roadblocks across the main thoroughfares and then the yellow shirts arrived and set up camp outside the terminal building. I witnessed them setting up those roadblocks with my own eyes. Not second hand on TV, nor on the internet, but with my own eyes as I was at the airport that day.

This is absolute fact, despite your best efforts to try and deny it.

As I have already pointed out, the armed and masked men arrived before the main group of protesters, and were largely in control of security throughout the operation.

If you think old women and kids with hand clappers could have organised, planned and carried out such an operation that you will see on YouTube, as well as the beatings, intimidation, vehicle spot-checks and even murder that went down during the occupation then you are sadly mistaken.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, I cannot take your 'eyewitness reports' at face value.

But I welcome any supportive literature, in text or video form, you know of regarding the occupation if you know of any.

[Old Man River]

Jayboy, several posts back I published my opinion on this, but to repeat, while I have never supported the PAD's actions, it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD. I included the post below to show that the AOT allowed cargo flights prior to the full opening of the airport for passenger flights. I think there is enough media support available that shows that the AOT closed the airport to passenger flights, not the PAD, who never blocked people from boarding flights nor blocked the runways (hence, the cargo flights).

From my perspective, I fully understood the AOT's position as I doubt their insurance carriers would have honored claims for accidents for any reason during the PAD's occupation. I don't think, from a business perspective, the AOT had a choice but to close the airport, but since it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD, I think Thai Airways made a huge mistake in not including the AOT in its lawsuit.

Strictly, as it relates to the court case, I think it is going to be very difficult for Thai Airways to prove that the PAD actions were responsible for keeping flights from taking off and landing.

OMR, I entirely take your point (and agree the arguments supporting it).It's an issue for lawyers to debate but I have a strong feeling the case will fizzle to nothing.This matter can't be settled in Thailand given the cast of characters involved.

I think it will go to court. Now, I expect little will happen to the owners of Santika and I doubt we will see much more on Juthamas (former TAT governor), nor the kid that purposely drove his Mercedes into a crowd, but this one has international overtones so it will go to court.

However, given a bunch of individuals are being sued, Thai Airways' amount is a pipe dream. I suspect only Sondhi Lim will end up with a large judgment against him, primarily because he has fallen out of favor on all sides, making him a perfect fall guy.

[jackspratt]

Ober, why weren't you a member of TV when all this airport stuff was happening, and we could have had the benefit of your on-the-spot reports.

Or perhaps you were, but didn't bother at the time

[animatic]

Maybe no one mentioned we might be worth bothering with yet.

Seems the TVF influence is possible greater than realized back then.