"Double" charging of foreign tourists is killing our business, say Krabi long tail boat operators

[hawker9000]

1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

So what if they choose not to travel.  You are condoning a dual pricing schema which once people truly understand it many choose to vote with their feet as these boat operators are experiencing. 

 

Good job to all who refuse to accept the blatant form of discrimination. 

Here here.   And good to see that at least some Thais are finally catching on despite the farang fish that are always out there willing to parrot their ridiculous rationalizations for the double-pricing nonsense.  'Gonna be a long road back tho'.

 

[DekDaeng]

2 hours ago, scubachild said:

 I know that is against our western sensibilities to pay more but a little bit more wouldn't be unreasonable   Let's not forget Thai people rarely have the chance to travel overseas as us westerners do. 

"rarely have the chance to travel overseas"

 

don't that show!

[Patmalone]

1 hour ago, PatOngo said:

How long is a piece of string?

Twice as long as half it's length.

[chrissables]

23 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

and it's perfectly reasonable. Thai society exists to make Thai people happy, not foreigners.

 

and foreigners will whine a bit and accept it. and those who can't afford 400 baht fee - who in Thailand needs them? anyway they are not going to spend significant amount of money -just cheap beer, cheap guesthouse and a cheap whore.

 

Tourist business exists to make money, not to make foreigners happy. it's not charity.

Samming is perfectly reasonable? Please forward your bank details.

 

Being able to pay is not the same as willing.

 

I will take your knowledge of cheap whores to be better than mine.

 

Try writing a comment based on real life knowledge and what is morally acceptable. Maybe if it 4,000 baht for you you will still pay? Or 40,000 if you feel rich.

[Familyaffairs]

You can call it whatever, but it is called racial discrimination, unlawful under Thai law, and other countries should apply the same to Thai visitors to teach them a lesson of how it feels.to pay 10 x more than others, and if they think it is justified.

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, scubachild said:

 I know that is against our western sensibilities to pay more but a little bit more wouldn't be unreasonable   Let's not forget Thai people rarely have the chance to travel overseas as us westerners do. 

What has that got to do with anything? And those who do manage to travel overseas, let's charge them 10x more than the locals, just to be 'fair'. If it's okay in Thailand then surely it's okay in USA, Sweden, Australia, UK, Germany etc etc etc., Why not? Why is Thailand a special case where it's okay to cheat.

 

Even these idiots protesting still don't get it, thinking it's okay to charge their guests 5x more.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Bangkok Barry

[1duckyboy]

NO sympathy here.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 1duckyboy

[RedQualia]

Disappointed recently when taking a truck load of donations to Wat Chedi Luang in Chiang Mai. There were barricades across the entrance with a sign saying that foreigners had to go to another gate, where they would have to pay admission for entry. "The principle of the thing" applies here as well, only more so. Asking for a donation is one thing. But one should not be forced to pay to worship, or to enter a spiritual house.

 

There are a few other temples, at least, where one must pay to enter... Wat Po, in Bangkok, and Wat Phra That on Doi Suthep come to mind. These temples have very much been reduced to nothing more than tourist attractions. I am disappointed that secretary (the abbot is very old) at Wat Chedi Luang has decided that temple also, is nothing more than a tourist attraction. It seems we will not be visiting there anymore, nor taking donations to that particular temple.

[Familyaffairs]

32 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

and it's perfectly reasonable. Thai society exists to make Thai people happy, not foreigners.

 

and foreigners will whine a bit and accept it. and those who can't afford 400 baht fee - who in Thailand needs them? anyway they are not going to spend significant amount of money -just cheap beer, cheap guesthouse and a cheap whore.

 

Tourist business exists to make money, not to make foreigners happy. it's not charity.

I have lived here for 25 years, pay taxes and CAN afford it,but won't out of principle,mas I do not subscribe racism.  I have paid my own way here, my Thai son never got anything free, incl .schooling,medical aid etc. When I was young,society taught me that discrimination is an ugly thing. I still happen to believe that.

[Matt96]

7 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Samming is perfectly reasonable? Please forward your bank details.

 

Being able to pay is not the same as willing.

 

I will take your knowledge of cheap whores to be better than mine.

 

Try writing a comment based on real life knowledge and what is morally acceptable. Maybe if it 4,000 baht for you you will still pay? Or 40,000 if you feel rich.

"being able to pay is not the same as willing."

OK if you are not willing to pay the price sellers asks - don't buy the entrance. sellers charges you as much as he decides and he does not care either you find this price acceptable or not.

 

why it's so hard to understand?

 

[Andrew65]

1 hour ago, PatOngo said:

"Double" charging?

40 (local) doubled equals 400 (farang)?

Maths on par with their ethics! 

I think they mean double pricing, as in 2 prices, one for falang & one for Thais. (Same-same but different!).

 

[Pepper1959]

I took my partner to Perth for Christmas and New Year, it was his first time in Australia and he suddenly realised that there was no difference in entry fees for him and me. We were both screwed high fees, there was no discrimination. The companies and government were simply out to rip us both off, but at least they did it fairly.

[jacko45k]

How can foreign tourists experience Thai 'culture' unless they are overcharged and discriminated against ?

 

[whaleboneman]

1 hour ago, Titan1962 said:

I totally agree with the all the other comments. I can't remember seeing any of this shit in my home country. Theme parks did not charge extra if you are a tourist. Restaurants never had dual prices.Taxis are all on the meter and you all pay the same.

its just a money grab and it sucks. I can understand if you are in a night market or street stall. A bit of haggling and barter can be fun. But in a fully set up business like hotels, restaurants,tourists attractions ect. One price for all,

I also agree that there are a lot of wealthy Thais now,driving cars and living in homes I wish I could afford. 

But in the end it's thailand,so you have the choice to not pay. Vote with your wallet.

its a principle thing.

My GF tries to make a few extra baht selling shit on line. I tell her all the time, better to make 80 baht and sell more. Than trying to make 200 baht and sell nothing. It took awhile but now she understands.

Even at 80 baht that must be some good shit.

[TKDfella]

Oh silly me, I just thought foreigners had to pay more because we were considered 'higher quality' tourists...yes I know, I've got that round the wrong way too. I learned a long time ago that when they 'shoot themselves in the foot' the pain is not recognized very quickly...it takes a loooong time to get to the head...or put it another way 'the penny never seems to reach the ground', ha!

[remobb]

The penny is finally dropping. I pay tax here so why should I pay more?

[recom273]

32 minutes ago, MartinL said:

UK National Trust and National Parks are two entirely separate entities.

 

Entry to UK National Parks (as distinct from National Trust) most certainly is free since there are no entrance gates or toll booths. I could drive into any UK National Park and, apart from (maybe) a sign telling me I'd entered, I wouldn't know I'd crossed the boundary. My brother lived inside a National Park and I never paid an entry fee to visit him or to park my car in his village.

Yes, sorry, I apologize .. there is 'UK national parks' which are like datmoor and the dales which are free, I didn't mean to infer you were wrong, but using your comment as a base to hilight something we were talking about over dinner.

 

My parents say that places in the U.K. that are comparable to a Thai national park, like Cheddar Gorge ( I think ) is free but comes with catches, like the car parking fee, but if you pay a nominal yearly subscription then it becomes free.

 

Why are the 'Thai national parks' not accountable? why can we not pay a yearly subscription and take a cooperative pride that we have done something good for the country.

 

Sorry, if I gave the impression that I was correcting you, because the comment made was 100% correct.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by recom273

[TSF]

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

How can foreign tourists experience Thai 'culture' unless they are overcharged and discriminated against ?

 

Ha ha, good point. Come and experience "Thainess" we'll charge you 10 times more (with one of our famous Thai smiles, of course)

[Matt96]

13 minutes ago, Familyaffairs said:

I have lived here for 25 years, pay taxes and CAN afford it,but won't out of principle,mas I do not subscribe racism.  I have paid my own way here, my Thai son never got anything free, incl .schooling,medical aid etc. When I was young,society taught me that discrimination is an ugly thing. I still happen to believe that.

" pay taxes and CAN afford it,but won't out of principle,mas I do not subscribe racism"

 

1) if you pay ridiculously low taxes it does not mean you have a right to use government property on your own terms.

2) it's not racism at all. your leftist slurring does not work here. person of any race will pay the cheap price if he is a Thai citizen. because this natural park is a collective property of Thai citizen.

"I have paid my own way here, my Thai son never got anything free, incl .schooling,medical aid etc"

1) you paid for a right to live here. not for rights of a Thai citizen - because these rights are not on sale.

2) your son can pay 20 baht because he is a Thai citizen. and you are not.

"When I was young,society taught me that discrimination is an ugly thing."

1) your society is sinking under waves of foreign parasites who call themselves "refugees". because of feminists, social justice warriors, left activists, environmentalists and other losers. this is not a good example for Thailand lol

2) even at your own country discrimination by citizenship exists. citizen enjoy much more rights than foreigners. why don't you let all foreigners come to your country for work without restrictions? to finally get rid of discrimination hah? to build a truly tolerant society?

"I still happen to believe that."

you can believe in whatever you want. Thai people have different beliefs (thanks God!). Either you like it or not.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Matt96

[chrissables]

11 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

"being able to pay is not the same as willing."

OK if you are not willing to pay the price sellers asks - don't buy the entrance. sellers charges you as much as he decides and he does not care either you find this price acceptable or not.

 

why it's so hard to understand?

 

I do understand, and i don't pay.

 

But it appears you are missing the point, again.

[kcpattaya]

Dual standards is killing Thailand in general...

[Alan Deer]

THere is an argument that similar schemes are operated in other countries - I find this total a fallacious.

firstly the sins of one country don't justify those of another....and secondly many people mistake discounts and concessions offered in other countries as a similar situation - this is quite the opposite - these people are paying BELOW the normal amount, not 10 times over.

 

a lot of research was carried out at the end of the millennium into charging for "national Treasures" and attractions and it was found firstly that one has to decide if you want people to see them or not? - as pricing deters and high prices in the long run reduce income from admissions. It is also argued that it is the right of people to have reasonable access to national heritage in whatever form it takes.

 

You then need to decide who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Relying of public admissions is usually a complete myth - it hardly touches the running costs of any park/gallery/museum, it is the government that needs to organise and maintain these places - Thailand even gets international funding for various museums and wildlife projects.

 

for instance the Bang Chiang site is a UNESCO world heritage site - "WORLD"!! - and then to cynically turn round and charge foreigners ten times the going rate to enter seems unconscionable to me.

 

To sum up, the kind of dual charging practiced in Thailand is short-sighted and is actually damaging to the country's national heritage.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Alan Deer

[Matt96]

5 minutes ago, remobb said:

The penny is finally dropping. I pay tax here so why should I pay more?

by paying taxes you are not buying rights of a Thai citizen. National parks are a collective property of Thai citizen. That's why they pay less.

 

and you are not a co-owner even if you pay taxes for a 100 years...

[Matt96]

2 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

THere is an argument that similar schemes are operated in other countries - I find this total a fallacious.

firstly the sins of one country don't justify those of another....and secondly many people mistake discounts and concessions offered in other countries as a similar situation - this is quite the opposite - these people are paying BELOW the normal amount, not 10 times over.

 

a lot of research was carried out at the end of the millennium into charging for "national Treasures" and attractions and it was found firstly that one has to decide if you want people to see them or not? - as pricing deters and high prices in the long run reduce income from admissions. It is also argued that it is the right of people to have reasonable access to national heritage in whatever form it takes.

 

You then need to decide who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Relying of public admissions is usually a complete myth - it hardly touches the running costs of any park/gallery/museum, it is the government that needs to organise and maintain these places - Thailand even gets international funding for various museums and wildlife projects.

 

for instance the Bang Chiang site is a UNESCO world heritage site - "WORLD"!! - and then to cynically turn round and charge foreigners ten times the going rate to enter seems unconscionable to me.

 

" and attractions and it was found firstly that one has to decide if you want people to see them or not? "

 

first of all government wants natural treasures to be intact. and too many people can disturb  a life of nature. it's better to let in less tourists and charge them more than charge them less but bigger amount of people.

 

"for instance the Bang Chiang site is a UNESCO world heritage site - "WORLD"!! " it does not mean it's a property of the WORLD. it's a world heritage site but still a property of Thai citizen only. that's why they pay less. either you like it or not.

[Alan Deer]

1 minute ago, Matt96 said:

by paying taxes you are not buying rights of a Thai citizen. National parks are a collective property of Thai citizen. That's why they pay less.

 

and you are not a co-owner even if you pay taxes for a 100 years...

"ownership" is not what national heritage is about - it is to do with conservation, preservation and reasonable public enjoyment thereof.

Many sites around the world are deemed "world Heritage" - Thailand as a few and still 2-tier charges.

 

No country in it's right mind would "hide it's heritage under a bushel" - it is this heritage that attracts visitors who come to enjoy it - it is what makes a country interesting and even respected...

Many foreign countries' museums own French Impressionist paintings but hey don't refuse admission to foreigners (Trump excepted) to see the art or charge them 10 times over......ownership is NOT the criteria - it is more than a basic commodity.

 

Thailand's tourism is based on their natural resources - they are grossly mismanaged - I'd say that this is in a large part due to the ignorance of successive governments who seem incapable of seeing them as anything more than a cash-cow...in the end this simply reflects badly on the Thai nation and gives them and international image of a bunch of Philistines.

 

[Alan Deer]

5 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

" and attractions and it was found firstly that one has to decide if you want people to see them or not? "

 

first of all government wants natural treasures to be intact. and too many people can disturb  a life of nature. it's better to let in less tourists and charge them more than charge them less but bigger amount of people.

 

"for instance the Bang Chiang site is a UNESCO world heritage site - "WORLD"!! " it does not mean it's a property of the WORLD. it's a world heritage site but still a property of Thai citizen only. that's why they pay less. either you like it or not.

As I said only a Philistine would look on heritage as property - why do you think UNESCO fund these projects? 

 

"first of all government wants natural treasures to be intact. and too many people can disturb  a life of nature. it's better to let in less tourists and charge them more than charge them less but bigger amount of people."

 

i'm sorry but you seem to have a very myopic view which is pretty  uninformed on the most basic principles of managing heritage sites such as national parks. It isn't just a simple "keep 'em out and everything will be OK" we are talking about WHY the parks exist and how they need to function as the "heritage" not property of the nation. You should take a look at Oz or the US....with proper management you can control quite large numbers of tourists with minimum environmental damage - unfortunately in Thailand management is so hap-hazard and underfunded that even small numbers of visitors do untold damage to the parks.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Alan Deer

[chrissables]

4 minutes ago, Matt96 said:

" and attractions and it was found firstly that one has to decide if you want people to see them or not? "

 

first of all government wants natural treasures to be intact. and too many people can disturb  a life of nature. it's better to let in less tourists and charge them more than charge them less but bigger amount of people.

 

"for instance the Bang Chiang site is a UNESCO world heritage site - "WORLD"!! " it does not mean it's a property of the WORLD. it's a world heritage site but still a property of Thai citizen only. that's why they pay less. either you like it or not.

Stop showing your ignorance. If it's a UNESCO site, it receives funds from UNESCO. It it is funded from money outside of Thailand, they should reflect that in the pricing.

[Matt96]

8 minutes ago, kcpattaya said:

Dual standards is killing Thailand in general...

farangs are whining about this for the last 50 years. meanwhile Thai economy keeps growing,  amount of tourist visits and revenues are growing.

 

because the revenue from those whining farangs in cheap guesthouses with beer is insignificant. tourists are those who come for short time and spend money on tourism hotels, massage parlous etc.

Chinese are tourists. Russians are tourists. Indians are tourists, Arabs are tourists. and they are happy with Thailand.

old farang sugar daddies are not. Thailand will not cry if all of them will go back home.

and, by the way, tourism is just 19% of GDP of Thailand  lol

[frank0424]

3 hours ago, scubachild said:

 I know that is against our western sensibilities to pay more but a little bit more wouldn't be unreasonable   Let's not forget Thai people rarely have the chance to travel overseas as us westerners do. 

 But when they do travel no western country charges them more.

[Tracyb]

Condo project " 168" on Sukhumvit soi 36 in Bangkok recently revealed to buyers that it has dual pricing for This/Foreigners.  A difference of 25,000 Baht per square meter.   "168residence.com"   WHAT??