Thai Lion Air seeks THB2 million compensation from flirty bomb joker

[mancub]

Airline's reaction possibly a result of the scrutiny the Thai aviation industry is currently subject to.

[DLock]

[arrowsdawdle]

The price of stupidity...

Seems quite harsh and totally out of balance when compared with the rest of the sh t going on in Thailand.

They should have a very public trial and lock him up to deter future idiots. Then they could quietly release him after a week or two. But, to try to get money from the situation is ludicrous because it distracts from the actual incident's seriousness.

[USNret]

I feel sorry for the kid. I was on a flight to the US about 5 months after 9/11 from Thailand and this Muslim man in front of me checking in. Had no check in or carry on baggage and no one said a damn thing about it.

I was to come to thailand from Seattle the friday after 911 by flight was cancelled I left a week later. i always used to come to Thailand with a small carry on with basic toiletries and 3 changes of clothes. I would buy clothes on the holiday and fill a suitcase to go back. So any ways when I go to check in at Seattle the immigration officer was shocked to see I only had a carry on and my return ticket was dated for me to return in 2 months.The guy wouldnot let me go he kept searching his computer for anything he could find maybe about me or a rule he could use to detain me. He did this for 10 minutes.Finally I ask can I go now he looked at me with desperate look on his face and said go ahead. I was really pissed about 911 I lost a week of holidays in thailand and no reinbursement.

So sorry that the death of 3000 caused you to delay your holiday. Sometimes life just ain't fair.

[chilli42]

He could not pay that off if he works for the rest of his natural life.

[silent]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

Could be only said nice bomb. You know the kind.

[silent]

2,000,000 baht. Does Lion Air really think they can squeeze blood from a stone.

Passing the word around that even saying the word bomb in English, is a crime for Thais I guess. What could be simpler.

[Dustdevil]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

And that's not since 9/11. That's since the Palestinians started hijacking and blowing up planes in the early '70s. I remember specifically some time in the early 70s a flight attendant on a US airliner admonishing a passenger for joking about bombs. Federal law against even joking about it.

[CaptHaddock]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

And that's not since 9/11. That's since the Palestinians started hijacking and blowing up planes in the early '70s. I remember specifically some time in the early 70s a flight attendant on a US airliner admonishing a passenger for joking about bombs. Federal law against even joking about it.

The question remains: at what point was the aircraft in any danger?

[BB1955]

This isnt a joking matter to airlines and airline employees . Should send a good message out , when u get on a plane to travel its best to be on your best behavior .

[Si Thea01]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

Providing false information thus endangering the safety of an aircraft, how? The false information relates to his allegedly having a bomb, therefore by providing such information he has endangered the aircraft. Who, at the time, knew if he did or didn't. Since he made the statement, it had to be accepted he had, until it was proven otherwise, thus authorities had to err on the side of caution thererore until it was cleared, the aircraft remained endangered, that's how. Hoping that has enlightened you?

I agree that it's reasonable to seek compensation. Who is supposed to pay for the losses incurred, the airline because of some idiot's utterances. And let the criminal charges stay also, maybe some time inside, a fine and compensation will start acting as a deterrent to show the many idiot's who do this world wide, almost daily, that it's not worth it.. And I don't think it's over the top, it's about time Thailand woke up and started implementiing heavy fines and some gaol time for everything criminal. B100 and B500 teaches no one anything. Changes have to start somewhere. Let's hope this might be the start. One can dream, I know.

[Si Thea01]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

And that's not since 9/11. That's since the Palestinians started hijacking and blowing up planes in the early '70s. I remember specifically some time in the early 70s a flight attendant on a US airliner admonishing a passenger for joking about bombs. Federal law against even joking about it.

The question remains: at what point was the aircraft in any danger?

Not really, the question is, when was the plane considered to be out of danger? Can't you see that from the time he stated he had a bomb, until it was cleared and proven he hadn't, that the plane was in perceived danger. If you cannot see this then I cannot understand your logic.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Si Thea01

[CaptHaddock]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

Providing false information thus endangering the safety of an aircraft, how? The false information relates to his allegedly having a bomb, therefore by providing such information he has endangered the aircraft. Who, at the time, knew if he did or didn't. Since he made the statement, it had to be accepted he had, until it was proven otherwise, thus authorities had to err on the side of caution thererore until it was cleared, the aircraft remained endangered, that's how. Hoping that has enlightened you?

I agree that it's reasonable to seek compensation. Who is supposed to pay for the losses incurred, the airline because of some idiot's utterances. And let the criminal charges stay also, maybe some time inside, a fine and compensation will start acting as a deterrent to show the many idiot's who do this world wide, almost daily, that it's not worth it.. And I don't think it's over the top, it's about time Thailand woke up and started implementiing heavy fines and some gaol time for everything criminal. B100 and B500 teaches no one anything. Changes have to start somewhere. Let's hope this might be the start. One can dream, I know.

That's complete gobbledygook. Yes, he caused financial loss to the airline and even to the passengers for which he should be held liable, but the aircraft itself was never in any danger at all. Saying something that isn't true can cause an airplane to explode?

[Srikcir]

Passenger responsible for delay of flight - Bt2 million

Airlines responsible for delay of flight - zero

[Thian]

Thai from upcountry need training how to live in the civilised world.

When they come to BKK they think they can act here as in their village.

Many times the air-hostess allow passengers to keep their purse under their seat or on their lap. I thought that's always illegal to do but i'm not sure.

[Si Thea01]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

Providing false information thus endangering the safety of an aircraft, how? The false information relates to his allegedly having a bomb, therefore by providing such information he has endangered the aircraft. Who, at the time, knew if he did or didn't. Since he made the statement, it had to be accepted he had, until it was proven otherwise, thus authorities had to err on the side of caution thererore until it was cleared, the aircraft remained endangered, that's how. Hoping that has enlightened you?

I agree that it's reasonable to seek compensation. Who is supposed to pay for the losses incurred, the airline because of some idiot's utterances. And let the criminal charges stay also, maybe some time inside, a fine and compensation will start acting as a deterrent to show the many idiot's who do this world wide, almost daily, that it's not worth it.. And I don't think it's over the top, it's about time Thailand woke up and started implementiing heavy fines and some gaol time for everything criminal. B100 and B500 teaches no one anything. Changes have to start somewhere. Let's hope this might be the start. One can dream, I know.

That's complete gobbledygook. Yes, he caused financial loss to the airline and even to the passengers for which he should be held liable, but the aircraft itself was never in any danger at all. Saying something that isn't true can cause an airplane to explode?

The only thing goobledgook is your logic. Of course sayng something unture cannot cause a plane to explode but what of the unkknown? How were they to know there was not a bomb in his possession at the time. They had to accept he did until they ascertained there was, infact, no bomb. So your saying that despite his allegations there was no possible danger to the plane or it's passengers because it was later discovered that he lied.

So as far as you're concerned any one on a plane can state that they have a bomb but as long as it's untrue, despite the chaos created, it's ok and they should not be charged with any offence let alone endangement of an aircraft. It's true, only in Thailand, truly amazing.

[Si Thea01]

2,000,000 baht. Does Lion Air really think they can squeeze blood from a stone.

Passing the word around that even saying the word bomb in English, is a crime for Thais I guess. What could be simpler.

Try it on any airline and regardless of the language spoken, see how far it gets you, especially in the States. Its a crime world wide and not only on airlines, even if you are telling an untruth.

[CaptHaddock]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

Providing false information thus endangering the safety of an aircraft, how? The false information relates to his allegedly having a bomb, therefore by providing such information he has endangered the aircraft. Who, at the time, knew if he did or didn't. Since he made the statement, it had to be accepted he had, until it was proven otherwise, thus authorities had to err on the side of caution thererore until it was cleared, the aircraft remained endangered, that's how. Hoping that has enlightened you?

I agree that it's reasonable to seek compensation. Who is supposed to pay for the losses incurred, the airline because of some idiot's utterances. And let the criminal charges stay also, maybe some time inside, a fine and compensation will start acting as a deterrent to show the many idiot's who do this world wide, almost daily, that it's not worth it.. And I don't think it's over the top, it's about time Thailand woke up and started implementiing heavy fines and some gaol time for everything criminal. B100 and B500 teaches no one anything. Changes have to start somewhere. Let's hope this might be the start. One can dream, I know.

That's complete gobbledygook. Yes, he caused financial loss to the airline and even to the passengers for which he should be held liable, but the aircraft itself was never in any danger at all. Saying something that isn't true can cause an airplane to explode?

The only thing goobledgook is your logic. Of course sayng something unture cannot cause a plane to explode but what of the unkknown? How were they to know there was not a bomb in his possession at the time. They had to accept he did until they ascertained there was, infact, no bomb. So your saying that despite his allegations there was no possible danger to the plane or it's passengers because it was later discovered that he lied.

So as far as you're concerned any one on a plane can state that they have a bomb but as long as it's untrue, despite the chaos created, it's ok and they should not be charged with any offence let alone endangement of an aircraft. It's true, only in Thailand, truly amazing.

Wow. Reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit, is it? I didn't claim that he broke no laws and should be allowed just to walk away. I specifically stated that it would be reasonable to hold him liable for the financial losses that he caused to the airline and even to the other passengers.

Nor did I say that the airline authorities should not have treated it as a credible threat. They should have and they did. But the guy was not charged with "giving the impression of endangering an aircraft" or "claiming falsely to endanger an aircraft." He was charged with "(actually) endangering an aircraft" which he apparently never did.

Do you often find the world unaccountably surprising?

[cekipa]

The price of stupidity...

Seems quite harsh and totally out of balance when compared with the rest of the sh t going on in Thailand.

Claiming to have a bomb inside the bag to a flight attendant is as reliable as wanting to move the vatican from rome to nana plaza.

[Si Thea01]

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Si Thea01

[Yann55]

I feel sorry for the kid. I was on a flight to the US about 5 months after 9/11 from Thailand and this Muslim man in front of me checking in. Had no check in or carry on baggage and no one said a damn thing about it.

I was to come to thailand from Seattle the friday after 911 by flight was cancelled I left a week later. i always used to come to Thailand with a small carry on with basic toiletries and 3 changes of clothes. I would buy clothes on the holiday and fill a suitcase to go back. So any ways when I go to check in at Seattle the immigration officer was shocked to see I only had a carry on and my return ticket was dated for me to return in 2 months.The guy wouldnot let me go he kept searching his computer for anything he could find maybe about me or a rule he could use to detain me. He did this for 10 minutes.Finally I ask can I go now he looked at me with desperate look on his face and said go ahead. I was really pissed about 911 I lost a week of holidays in thailand and no reinbursement.

Your last sentence is beyond shocking ... I do hope that you didn't think twice when you wrote it down, and when you realized how appalling it sounds it was too late to change ... But perhaps I'm being optimistic about the human capacity for empathy and the world really has come to this : 'I was really pissed about 9-11 [because] I lost a week of holidays in Thailand and no reimbursment' ...

[Yann55]

The price of stupidity...

Seems quite harsh and totally out of balance when compared with the rest of the sh t going on in Thailand.

Claiming to have a bomb inside the bag to a flight attendant is as reliable as wanting to move the vatican from rome to nana plaza.

Less reliable, actually, because nothing stops you from opening a bar in Nana Plaza and calling it 'The Vatican', since extremely poor taste is not a problem here : I remember, right after Clinton's extra marital affair, a bar appeared in South Pattaya with the name 'Lewinsky Bar' and in case the customer didn't catch the hint, they added the picture of a big cigar under the name. Perhaps it still exists. Sorry for being off-topic here.

About that kid and his silly joke, frankly I feel sorry for him, and my impression is that he's being used to make people feel that this particular Airline is serious about security ... it's a marketing stunt, nothing else, and it certainly isn't worth wreaking havoc into the life of that young man. But who cares in this world were money and image are everything. Ensuring real security costs money, and is not necessarily visible by the media and the customers, whereas this pathetic little comedy is a win-win for the Airline.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Yann55

[timendres]

Seems like seeking compensation for the airline's loss is reasonable on the face of it. In what way did he actually endanger the safety of an aircraft?

The world over.....You say......BOMB........The same thing will happen, evacuation of the plane.

I understand their response which was entirely correct, but now they are charging him with endangering the safety of an aircraft. Did the evacuation, of which he was the cause, endanger the aircraft? Since there was no bomb it would appear that the aircraft was never in any danger although a loss was indeed imposed on the airline by his stupid remark.

Classic case of modern times over reaction. Use some common sense.

* What bomber will announce he is carrying a bomb

*His bags have to go through a checking process anyway

The guy could have been searched or stopped from flying. Why stop an entire flight?

Well, some people are entirely crazy enough to announce their bomb, but agreed that it is not likely.

The checking process is clearly not 100%, and the reaction confirms that the security people know this.

It would have been reasonable to simply detain the guy and remove his bag from the flight. But with modern technology, removal of the bag could have posed some risk. That said, looking at the perp, it seems unlikely he would have the sophistication for such a device. Nonetheless, modern protocols are what they are, and no one would be allowed to just walk that bag off the plane and into the airport.

The most reasonable approach would have been to detain the perp, send in a bomb squad to inspect his bag. Once it was clear the bag was full of clothes and dildos, remove it and let the plane proceed. That would likely have taken less than a couple of hours.

[CaptHaddock]

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

If you haven't learned to read by this point in life I am not going to be able to teach you. No facts are in dispute. The question is not what punishments should be appropriate given the losses, etc. etc. It comes down to a simple point. At what point was the plane actually endangered? If, as appears to be the case given the story so far, the plane was never in any actual danger then he cannot reasonably be charged with endangering the plane. He might justifiably be charged with other illegal acts, but not endangering the plane.

You are in the position of Humpty Dumpty who says, "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean--no more and no less." Only the law does not work that way. "Endangering" means endangering and not every possible action to do with a plane that you think should be punished.

[roo860]

I feel sorry for the kid. I was on a flight to the US about 5 months after 9/11 from Thailand and this Muslim man in front of me checking in. Had no check in or carry on baggage and no one said a damn thing about it.

I was to come to thailand from Seattle the friday after 911 by flight was cancelled I left a week later. i always used to come to Thailand with a small carry on with basic toiletries and 3 changes of clothes. I would buy clothes on the holiday and fill a suitcase to go back. So any ways when I go to check in at Seattle the immigration officer was shocked to see I only had a carry on and my return ticket was dated for me to return in 2 months.The guy wouldnot let me go he kept searching his computer for anything he could find maybe about me or a rule he could use to detain me. He did this for 10 minutes.Finally I ask can I go now he looked at me with desperate look on his face and said go ahead. I was really pissed about 911 I lost a week of holidays in thailand and no reinbursement.

Your last sentence is beyond shocking ... I do hope that you didn't think twice when you wrote it down, and when you realized how appalling it sounds it was too late to change ... But perhaps I'm being optimistic about the human capacity for empathy and the world really has come to this : 'I was really pissed about 9-11 [because] I lost a week of holidays in Thailand and no reimbursment' ...

Yes, he or she is a bell end!!!!

[Bluespunk]

He was given a number of chances to withdraw his idiotic comment and refused to do so.

No doubt his pride being hurt at being lectured by the object of his desire on his moronic behaviour.

Little <deleted> deserves everything he gets.

[dutchisaan]

I feel sorry for the kid. I was on a flight to the US about 5 months after 9/11 from Thailand and this Muslim man in front of me checking in. Had no check in or carry on baggage and no one said a damn thing about it.

I was to come to thailand from Seattle the friday after 911 by flight was cancelled I left a week later. i always used to come to Thailand with a small carry on with basic toiletries and 3 changes of clothes. I would buy clothes on the holiday and fill a suitcase to go back. So any ways when I go to check in at Seattle the immigration officer was shocked to see I only had a carry on and my return ticket was dated for me to return in 2 months.The guy wouldnot let me go he kept searching his computer for anything he could find maybe about me or a rule he could use to detain me. He did this for 10 minutes.Finally I ask can I go now he looked at me with desperate look on his face and said go ahead. I was really pissed about 911 I lost a week of holidays in thailand and no reinbursement.

You was pissd at 9-11, because you lost a week vacation?

Shame on you, I lost a verry dear friend on that day.

[Si Thea01]

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

If you haven't learned to read by this point in life I am not going to be able to teach you. No facts are in dispute. The question is not what punishments should be appropriate given the losses, etc. etc. It comes down to a simple point. At what point was the plane actually endangered? If, as appears to be the case given the story so far, the plane was never in any actual danger then he cannot reasonably be charged with endangering the plane. He might justifiably be charged with other illegal acts, but not endangering the plane.

You are in the position of Humpty Dumpty who says, "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean--no more and no less." Only the law does not work that way. "Endangering" means endangering and not every possible action to do with a plane that you think should be punished.

I need to learn how to read? One who critcises in such a manner needs to look at one's self first. A fine example of your reading skills, tell me what was said about facts being in dispute or questioning the punishment? Your words not mine, I questioned the endangerment aspect, which you disputed and I will tell you again that this is what he was charged with under Thai avaition law

If you're not happy then complain to the authorities. What you thoughts are about the law will not make one iota here. And what I said about the facts is that you did not present any to justify your statement, so please if you want to criticise at least get it right. So he should be charged with a criminal act, tell me which one, under Thai avaition law would be applicable, seeing you're the professed expert on the law? As I said, we will have to agree to disagree.

But just for your benefit endangering means a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune.. Yes, a possibility, the meaning being a thing that may happen or be the case. Who suggested I think that anything possible to do with a plane shouild be punished? Not I, just you adding words that mean nothing. And pray tell just how does the law work, in your mind at least? Can you answer anything asked of you,or will you just go off on your own tangent again?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Si Thea01

[Fookhaht]

I was really pissed about 911 I lost a week of holidays in thailand and no reinbursement.

So were the 3,000+ families who lost loved ones in the vicious attack on the twin towers. Let's get some perspective, shall we?

[CaptHaddock]

CaptHaddock

I have no trouble in comprehending but looking at certain aspects of your statement, you may. What don't you understand about him committing an offence which specifically relates to endangering an aircraft, perceived or otherwise, under the Thai Aviation Act, and under which the relevant charge was brought.

Despite what you think, the light punishments handed down to the perpetrators of such thoughtless threats do not match the losses incurred by the airlines, airports and passengers, not to mention the psychological damage they have inflicted on those onboard the aircraft concerned.

Therefore, airlines and airports cannot afford to dismiss a threat as fake and they must treat each threat as real. They have to let flights that have been threatened land as quickly as possible and delay the take off of those still on the ground, then the police have to conduct thorough security checks of planes and passengers. The economic losses for an airline can be in the millions of Baht.

So in your world, this is not endangering an aircraft because his statement was untrue. Just remember, every threat must be treated as real, which in turn explains why the aircraft was in danger but you cannot accept that can you?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, as no matter what evidence is put forward, you will not accept that what he was charged with is applicable because of the illogical thoughts you hold. Maybe you should learn how the law is defined and applied in these circumstances then you won't have to ask such an illogical question.

The only thing I find surprising is you and your failure to tender facts in an effort to justify your statement.

If you haven't learned to read by this point in life I am not going to be able to teach you. No facts are in dispute. The question is not what punishments should be appropriate given the losses, etc. etc. It comes down to a simple point. At what point was the plane actually endangered? If, as appears to be the case given the story so far, the plane was never in any actual danger then he cannot reasonably be charged with endangering the plane. He might justifiably be charged with other illegal acts, but not endangering the plane.

You are in the position of Humpty Dumpty who says, "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean--no more and no less." Only the law does not work that way. "Endangering" means endangering and not every possible action to do with a plane that you think should be punished.

I need to learn how to read? One who critcises in such a manner needs to look at one's self first. A fine example of your reading skills, tell me what was said about facts being in dispute or questioning the punishment? Your words not mine, I questioned the endangerment aspect, which you disputed and I will tell you again that this is what he was charged with under Thai avaition law

If you're not happy then complain to the authorities. What you thoughts are about the law will not make one iota here. And what I said about the facts is that you did not present any to justify your statement, so please if you want to criticise at least get it right. So he should be charged with a criminal act, tell me which one, under Thai avaition law would be applicable, seeing you're the professed expert on the law? As I said, we will have to agree to disagree.

But just for your benefit endangering means a source of danger; a possibility of incurring loss or misfortune.. Yes, a possibility, the meaning being a thing that may happen or be the case. Who suggested I think that anything possible to do with a plane shouild be punished? Not I, just you adding words that mean nothing. And pray tell just how does the law work, in your mind at least? Can you answer anything asked of you,or will you just go off on your own tangent again?

If you were a competent reader you would grasp the important difference between actually endangering someone and merely claiming to do so. If, for instance, I threaten to shoot you while brandishing a loaded 9mm Glock I have endangered you. If, on the other hand, I threaten to shoot you while pointing a water pistol that is a convincing, but harmless, replica of a 9mm Glock then, although I may well have commit some crime for which I ought to be punished, I have not in actual point of fact endangered you at all despite your reasonable belief at the time that I have. So the applicable charge would be something other than criminal endangerment. You insistently confuse possibility with the appearance of possibility, which causes me to wonder about your reading level.

In the case at hand the accused guy is not a terrorist and should not be treated as a terrorist, whatever else he may be guilty of. Thailand unfortunately is a country that does not enjoy the rule of law and whose judicial standards frequently beggar belief as, perhaps, in this case.