Countries Ban New Flights from Thailand Re Safety Concerns

[fountainhall]

The New York Times is quoting Associated Press in an article in yesterday's paper headed, "Airlines in Thailand Face Bans Over Safety Concerns".


BANGKOK тАФ ThailandтАЩs airlines are facing bans on new international flights and more inspections after the International Civil Aviation Organization flagged significant concerns about the countryтАЩs aviation safety, officials said on Friday.

The designation of Thailand as a тАЬsignificant safety concernтАЭ has not been announced publicly by the aviation group, a United Nations agency, but governments were informed last week.

Japan has blocked new flights from Thailand since the decision, and South Korea is considering similar measures, officials said. Existing flights are not affected . . .

Among the airlines forced to cancel flights are the low-cost carriers Thai AirAsia X, NokScoot and Asia Atlantic Airline, ThailandтАЩs Department of Civil Aviation said in a statement. The flagship carrier, Thai Airways, is also affected . . .

Jarumporn Chotikasathein, the president of Thai Airways, said the airline would have to cancel тАЬabout fiveтАЭ charter flights planned for the April holiday schedule. He said his airline and other Thai carriers would also undergo increased inspections by regulators from other countries as a result of the groupтАЩs designation . . .

The Thai ministry did not give details of the groupтАЩs concerns or recommendations, but said it planned to inform countries about the status of ThailandтАЩs aviation safety and тАЬthe solutions to fix the faults that were found in the inspection as soon as possible.тАЭ

Thailand was audited by the group in January; its previous assessment was in 2005. The aviation groupтАЩs office in Bangkok referred questions to its headquarters in Montreal, which could not immediately be reached for comment. Kwak Young-pil, an official from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in South Korea, said on Friday that the United Nations group made the designation on March 20.

Audits assess a countryтАЩs ability to ensure aviation safety in areas like staff licensing and training, airworthiness, and accident investigation, according to a report by Watson Farley & Williams, an international law firm with a commercial transportation practice.

The Civil Aviation Bureau of Japan informed its Thai counterpart by email this week that it would not allow new charter flights operated by carriers registered in Thailand to fly to Japanese airports. Noriaki Umezawa, a spokesman for the bureau, said the temporary measure was issued because of concerns that the airlines may not meet international safety standards.

The Japanese ban covers any тАЬchange of aviation services,тАЭ the Thai civil aviation department said, and also bars airlines from changing the type of aircraft normally used on scheduled routes.

South Korea said it was considering a similar ban. Mr. Kwak, the transportation official, said it was highly unlikely that new flights would be approved. NokScoot had been planning to start flights to SeoulтАЩs main airport, Incheon, in May. Mr. Kwak said flights currently operating between Thailand and South Korea would not be affected.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/bu ... rrer=&_r=0 (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/international/airlines-in-thailand-face-bans-over-safety-concerns.html?referrer=&_r=0)

I had seen a similar article in the Bangkok Post yesterday. The fact that an extensive article appears in international media will surely have a major negative effect on Thai carriers. Nok Scoot's charter flights can not now fly to Japan as planned from May 16 affecting holders of 20,000 tickets already sold. Thai Air Asia's plans to operate daily services to Tokyo and Sapporo are also suspended.


Industry executives said the department was able to meet only 21 out of 100 requirements imposed by the ICAO. The department has been struggling to meet ICAO compliance under a 90-day grace period as he global aviation community has begun to cast a suspicious eye towards Thailand, another executive said.

An ICAO downgrade would not have an immediate effect on Thai airlines, but it could lead US and EU aviation safety authorities to review Thailand's aviation safety standards, Alan Polivnick of international law firm Watson Farley & Williams (Thailand) told the Bangkok Post.

"If the US Federal Aviation Administration downgrades Thailand to Category 2, Thai Airways could continue its flights to Los Angeles but could not add new US destinations or change the aircraft used on this route," he said.

Mr Polivnick said US carriers would immediately have to end code-shares with Thai carriers where the Thai carriers were the operating carrier, as happened to the Philippines and South Korea.

But an EU move would be more significant, given the traffic involved.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/tou ... yers-wings (http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/tourism/509715/japan-korea-clip-thai-flyers-wings)

[Up2U]

Thanks for posting. I would like to know the specifics of the problems that the audit uncovered as usually time is given to correct any deficiencies. In the old days Thai was always a highly respected carrier.

Some years ago there were reports outside Thailand that Star Alliance was so concerned about Thai Airways' safety record and overall maintenance they put the carrier on notice to shape up or leave the alliance. And we all know Qantas abandoned Bangkok as a hub after their crash-landing there and the deemed tardy and inadequate response of the airport authorities

[anonone]

This is not any type of comment on a particular airline, so Thai Airways is not really the focus.

This is more about the overall infrastructure of air service in Thailand, which is why it is affecting all airlines based in Thailand. From another article I read someplace, it has to do with things like how the oversight of air traffic is accomplished. One example given was the agency that operates air systems should not be the same agency that investigates if they comply with international standards.

Using USA terms, more like trouble with the FAA, not United Airlines.

Regardless, certainly bad press for all of Thailand tourism as well as all the Thai-based airlines.

[arsenal]

Thai Airways have been going downhill for years.

[fountainhall]

I would like to know the specifics of the problems that the audit uncovered as usually time is given to correct any deficiencies.
No idea about the specifics, but if Thai airlines fail in 79 out of 100 categories, surely something quite serious needs to be fixed. From the articles I quoted, it seems there is a 90 day grace period.


This is more about the overall infrastructure of air service in Thailand, which is why it is affecting all airlines based in Thailand. From another article I read someplace, it has to do with things like how the oversight of air traffic is accomplished. One example given was the agency that operates air systems should not be the same agency that investigates if they comply with international standards.
I haven't seen any other articles and I can understand that general problems could result in these specific future actions. We know that all Philippine and Indonesian airlines were denied access to European airspace for some years, but that had also been a result of a number of air disasters in both countries.

If it is basically an oversight issue, then I hope the Thai authorities will sort out those remaining 79 issues a.s.a.p - certainly before TG is denied access to LAX and European air space. That would surely be one of the ultimate tourism disasters.

[bkkguy]

No idea about the specifics, but if Thai airlines fail in 79 out of 100 categories, surely something quite serious needs to be fixed.

as was pointed out above the problems are not with Thai airlines but with the Thai regulatory authorities.

the same Thai authority supervises certifying and approving Thai airline operations, certifying Thai airline staff and certifying Thai airport operations while also managing and operating the very airports that depend on these airlines and their own approval processes to stay in business - for some reason the ICAO considered this a conflict of interest.

The ICAO also said the Thai authority lacked sufficient qualified staff to perform its certification duties and reported a swag of other problems with the staffing, management and operation of the authority - for some reason some some other national aviation authorities now have concerns about the safety of allowing Thai certified flights operating in their airspace


From the articles I quoted, it seems there is a 90 day grace period.

There was an article in the Bangkok Post a few months ago when this first became an issue - there was a 90 day grace period, but as usual the Thai authorities moved with glacial speed and achieved very little in this grace period, hence the current international reaction.


If it is basically an oversight issue, then I hope the Thai authorities will sort out those remaining 79 issues a.s.a.p - certainly before TG is denied access to LAX and European air space. That would surely be one of the ultimate tourism disasters.

The Thai response to this has been fairly typical - we see no real reason to change the administrative structure, we see no real reason to seriously address the corruption and nepotism leading to staffing issues in the organisation, we see no reason to care about the safety issues but we can't have anything affect the tourism goose's golden egg so we will do the absolute minimum necessary to appease those pesky foreigners who do not understand Thai ways!

a comparison to the way the Thai authorities have responded to international pressure about human trafficking and slave labor in the fishing industry is educational - again it has taken years and any real reaction was only when things became critical, any response has not been about addressing the real moral and social issues or the corruption involved because this is what is right and important, instead it has all been about maintaining the country's and the industry's reputation, and the profits of vested interests

or perhaps I am just too much of a cynic?

bkkguy

[egel]

or perhaps I am just too much of a cynic?

No, you are not.

I went to Bali Hi Pier, in Pattaya, a few weeks ago.You will remember that an overloaded ferry sank last year with the death of at least 6 passengers and many more seriously injured.

Ferries arriving were marked with a maximum of 150 passengers. I counted 194 disembark form one and many others were similarly overloaded.

Those who earmark Thai Airlines as unsafe are correct.

All Public Transport in Thailand is unsafe...look at Bus accidents, Mini Bus crashes etc. Aircraft are no different...Phuket accident, Ko Samui accident... to name just two.

[fedssocr]

not to mention the literal trainwreck at Ayutthaya the other day

Maybe the junta has too many other things on their plate...like unity parties and festivals.

[Up2U]

BP: "....aviation watchdog rejects DCA remedy."

http://bangkokpost.com/news/general/511 ... dca-remedy (http://bangkokpost.com/news/general/511483/prajin-raises-alarm-as-aviation-watchdog-rejects-dca-remedy)

[Up2U]

Article 44 to be used to fix aviation woes.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politic ... 57100.html (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Article-44-to-be-used-to-fix-aviation-woes-30257100.html)

[fountainhall]

Part of that Nation report is pretty scary -


He said the ICAO had audited the Department of Civil Aviation for years and had found the country had about 300,000 flights a year regulated by just 12 officers.

But he said the number of flights had increased to 600,000 annually, but there were still only 12 officers.

When he asked the departmentтАЩs director general what had happened, he said he was told the department had proposed to restructure its organisation, amend its laws and increase its manpower and budget, but the process did not happen because of ignorance.
Ignorance? This is just so typically Thai! There is all the experience the Thais need spread around the region. How about engaging professionally qualified consultants to provide a road map?

Sorry, not the Thai way!!

[Up2U]

BP editorial: heed flight ban lessons.

http://bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/ ... ban-lesson (http://bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/513443/heed-flights-ban-lesson)

[Up2U]

........ two more months.....

http://bangkokpost.com/news/transport/5 ... two-months (http://bangkokpost.com/news/transport/513783/japan-allows-thai-chartered-flights-two-months)

[fountainhall]

This was almost bound to be part of the diplomacy. The Songkran holiday flights of tens of thousands of Thais or more can now go ahead. Wonder how many panicked and rebooked more expensively on other airlines, though?

[Surfcrest]

If it is basically an oversight issue, then I hope the Thai authorities will sort out those remaining 79 issues a.s.a.p - certainly before TG is denied access to LAX and European air space. That would surely be one of the ultimate tourism disasters.
Tourism disaster for Thai Airways and Thailand, but not necessarily for tourism in Thailand. If Thai Airways doesn't survive, surely another company will step in and try to may a go of that market. I'm not so sure Thai even understands who their customer base is and what part of the market share the competition holds, which in that business is fatal. I personally avoid Star Alliance whenever I can, I find the problems between one carrier and another are similar within the Alliance or at least they have been for me and I deal with them on the Cargo side of the business as well.

I think Thai's problems are business related. There's a lot of competition in the International market, especially with the long haul routes from Asia. Thailand's direct routes have faltered from the political uncertainty over the past few years with tourists adding Thailand on to their itinerary with other destinations...rather than making it the primary one. When the demand isn't strong for the airline, the focus is on to cut costs and this is where many carriers cut themselves out of the market.

Surfcrest

[aot871]

I don't understand why it is new flights only, if the airlines are not safe , what about the current flights, but its the same with a lot of things in Thailand, there are no independent checkers

[Up2U]

Thai safety concerns extend to EU.

http://bangkokpost.com/news/transport/5 ... tend-to-eu (http://bangkokpost.com/news/transport/515623/thai-safety-concerns-extend-to-eu)

[Up2U]

Cloudy skies for cash strapped DCA.

http://bangkokpost.com/news/special-rep ... rapped-dca (http://bangkokpost.com/news/special-reports/515479/cloudy-skies-ahead-for-cash-strapped-dca)

[fountainhall]

I don't understand why it is new flights only, if the airlines are not safe , what about the current flights
I also don't understand this part. My assumption is that a message is being sent. Get your act together and finally follow the rules. After all, this is not a new problem. Successive governments have done nothing about it for 10 years or more. At least it is now being tackled with a degree of priority.


If Thai Airways doesn't survive, surely another company will step in and try to may a go of that market. I'm not so sure Thai even understands who their customer base is and what part of the market share the competition holds, which in that business is fatal . . . I think Thai's problems are business related. There's a lot of competition in the International market, especially with the long haul routes from Asia. Thailand's direct routes have faltered from the political uncertainty over the past few years with tourists adding Thailand on to their itinerary with other destinations...rather than making it the primary one. When the demand isn't strong for the airline, the focus is on to cut costs and this is where many carriers cut themselves out of the market.
I also believe TG's problems relate to its business model. Thanks to corruption and the meddling of different governments, one serious problem it has is too many different types of aircraft. Its maintenance and servicing costs must therefore be quite a bit higher than carriers like Cathay and Singapore (although allowance has to be made for the lower currency base). TG has 9 compared to Cathay with just 4 - of which its 747-400s and A340s are being phased out. It is therefore left with only 777s and A330s to which will soon be added the new A350s.

Then its more recent decision to set up the subsidiary airline Thai Smile seems not to have worked. It already has a 39% stake in Nok Air which itself has established a joint venture with Singapore's Scoot to form Nok Scoot of which Nok owns 51%. The formation of Nok made sense as long as it carried passengers from TG's international to domestic networks. Nok's move to DMK rather scuppered that rationale. Thai Smile is mid-way between a budget and a full-service carrier and so it has taken up some of the domestic connections at BKK. You would expect it also to take over some of TGтАЩs short-haul low volume routes. Yet 3 years after going into operation its only overseas destination is Macao тАУ also served by Thai Air Asia with 4 daily flights! The rest of Thai SmileтАЩs flights on its 20 aircraft are charter operations.

Like all full service carriers, the profit for TG has to come from its selection of routes and those who buy seats in the front of its planes. Routes are certainly going to be axed. The front end, though, remains a huge problem for TG. When most other carriers offer a superior product and a cheaper price, many passengers who would previously have flown non-stop are now quite happy with one-stop flights. I know this is common elsewhere in the world (in June I fly Berlin/Chicago on BA at a price that is a great deal lower than London/Chicago on BA!) and it is true here. Why fly Thai biz to LHR at Bt. 156,680 return when the Gulf Airlines тАУ even Cathay Pacific тАУ offer fares ex BKK that are a great deal cheaper? Heck, even BAтАЩs non-stop biz price is one third less than TGтАЩs at just over Bt. 100,000!

[goji]

The first reason to fly direct is the length of the stopover and the detour. Whenever I have looked at that, it is usually 8 hours stopover on one of the legs, plus a few hours for the detour.

As for Thai Airlines, well they operate from a country which gets loads of tourist traffic. On many of the long haul routes, they will be competing with a carrier which would have higher labour costs. Competent management should be able to make this business work just fine. If they cannot find competent management at home, they could import it.

[fountainhall]

As for Thai Airlines . . . If they cannot find competent management at home, they could import it.
I entirely agree. But as i posted earlier in the thread, that just ain't the Thai way! Here again is part of the quote from The Nation -


He [Prayut] said the ICAO had audited the Department of Civil Aviation for years and had found the country had about 300,000 flights a year regulated by just 12 officers.

But he said the number of flights had increased to 600,000 annually, but there were still only 12 officers.

When he asked the departmentтАЩs director general what had happened, he said he was told the department had proposed to restructure its organisation, amend its laws and increase its manpower and budget, but the process did not happen because of ignorance.
Upper Thai management often prefer to be ignorant than to acknowledge that ignorance by importing qualified consultants to help them solve problems.


The first reason to fly direct is the length of the stopover and the detour. Whenever I have looked at that, it is usually 8 hours stopover on one of the legs, plus a few hours for the detour.
Not sure where you are flying from, but flying to Europe on the Gulf airlines, for example, can have plane change times of less than 2 hours. That's the case when I fly in June. I agree, though. I would never consider an 8 hour stopover just to get from A to B via C.

[Jellybean]

goji wrote:The first reason to fly direct is the length of the stopover and the detour. Whenever I have looked at that, it is usually 8 hours stopover on one of the legs, plus a few hours for the detour.

Not sure where you [goji] are flying from, but flying to Europe on the Gulf airlines, for example, can have plane change times of less than 2 hours. That's the case when I fly in June. I agree, though. I would never consider an 8 hour stopover just to get from A to B via C.
Yes, that was also my reaction fountainhall when I read gojiтАЩs post. I wonder where he is flying from that has 8 hour stopovers. I always fly with Qatar Airlines from London with a stopover in Doha en route to Bangkok. In nearly every case the stopover time is no more than an hour. In fact, there are occasions when I have to make a quick dash from one gate to the other with no stopover time. ThatтАЩs exactly what happened a couple of months ago in February. I actually prefer a one hour stop over as it gives me time to stretch my legs, do some duty free shopping and use the toilet facilities.

[egel]

No need for more than 2 hour stop over unless, of course, you are going for the cheapest fare in which case the stop over will be a lot longer and probably during the night.

[Up2U]

Deal to permit flights to Japan (thru May).

http://bangkokpost.com/news/transport/517671/deal-signed-to-continue-chartered-flights-to-japan

[Surfcrest]

I also believe TG's problems relate to its business model. Thanks to corruption and the meddling of different governments, one serious problem it has is too many different types of aircraft. Its maintenance and servicing costs must therefore be quite a bit higher than carriers like Cathay and Singapore (although allowance has to be made for the lower currency base). TG has 9 compared to Cathay with just 4 - of which its 747-400s and A340s are being phased out. It is therefore left with only 777s and A330s to which will soon be added the new A350s.

Then its more recent decision to set up the subsidiary airline Thai Smile seems not to have worked. It already has a 39% stake in Nok Air which itself has established a joint venture with Singapore's Scoot to form Nok Scoot of which Nok owns 51%. The formation of Nok made sense as long as it carried passengers from TG's international to domestic networks. Nok's move to DMK rather scuppered that rationale. Thai Smile is mid-way between a budget and a full-service carrier and so it has taken up some of the domestic connections at BKK. You would expect it also to take over some of TGтАЩs short-haul low volume routes. Yet 3 years after going into operation its only overseas destination is Macao тАУ also served by Thai Air Asia with 4 daily flights! The rest of Thai SmileтАЩs flights on its 20 aircraft are charter operations.

Like all full service carriers, the profit for TG has to come from its selection of routes and those who buy seats in the front of its planes. Routes are certainly going to be axed. The front end, though, remains a huge problem for TG. When most other carriers offer a superior product and a cheaper price, many passengers who would previously have flown non-stop are now quite happy with one-stop flights. I know this is common elsewhere in the world (in June I fly Berlin/Chicago on BA at a price that is a great deal lower than London/Chicago on BA!) and it is true here. Why fly Thai biz to LHR at Bt. 156,680 return when the Gulf Airlines тАУ even Cathay Pacific тАУ offer fares ex BKK that are a great deal cheaper? Heck, even BAтАЩs non-stop biz price is one third less than TGтАЩs at just over Bt. 100,000!

Maintenance is certainly a big and costly issue for the airlines and with the amount of costs, a likely target for cut backs. You don't need to go too far back in time to find airlines where this strategy hasn't worked for them and Alaska comes to mind after the string of events that nearly finished them off. They're one airline that has learned from their past mistakes and has really turned it around for themselves and are now one of the top two safest low cost carriers, despite still flying with some rather old equipment.

I've seen other airlines, (like my nemesis) who also fly extensive domestic and international routes with pretty much every piece of equipment made. I don't know how they do it and in some cases I don't want to know, because I'm forced to fly with them still...as they serve many of the remote routes up in northern Canada. I was not surprised to see them belly down at the Halifax airport last week and claiming their crash into airport power lines, losing their landing gear, the engines and most of a wing was just a "hard landing"...lol.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/Surfcrest/Air%20Canada.jpg

The problem with subsidiary airlines is that it becomes a "hide the peanut" game with expenses, shared costs and tarmac. When the primary carrier can't afford to meet the standards with all of their flights, they create subsidiaries like Lufthansa's Goldenwings so that it won't hurt the primary carrier's branding if something goes wrong or if they get a lot of negative attention for service, punctuality or safety.

Success for many carriers is made and lost on the ground. A strong ground strategy, dedicated gates and priority servicing...lends to planes coming and going on time, reliable connections and consistency with the ground crew operations. This makes maintaining existing routes to be as important if not more so than acquiring new routes. This is where it becomes problematic for Thai to compete, if they are not a primary destination with a lot of easy feeder routes available to the other long haul Asian carriers. Passengers are long hauling it in and out of other Asian airports and shuttling into Thailand and this is taking a bite out of Thai's market.

Surfcrest

[aot871]

My take on this , is 1) as has been said before , too many a/c types, 2) too many retired thail airforce officers being made CEO, with no idea on running a private airline , and 3) as always in Thailand jobs for the boys, and lastly running planes to cites , both in and out of country which don't make a profit. Another point is fact that Asians don't like to ask for help , because of their fear of loseing face, there fore no western person would be employed in a senior position , unlike the 3 large middle eastern carriers, which have british CEOS or managing directors

[fountainhall]

Another point is fact that Asians don't like to ask for help , because of their fear of loseing face, there fore no western person would be employed in a senior position , unlike the 3 large middle eastern carriers, which have british CEOS or managing directors
I don't quite agree with this. When TG started to operate internationally it was as a joint venture with SAS. SAS held 30% but crucially provided operational, managerial, marketing and training assistance. The joint venture lasted for 17 years. Ten years later in 1987 the number of expatriate staff had reduced to just 1% of the payroll. Without overseas help, that small local airline could never have made it internationally. I am sure in the fullness of time, the Gulf carries will all have local staff at the top of their management ladders.

I fully accept, though, that too many in top Thai managements are extremely reluctant - i.e. too proud тАУ to consider assistance from overseas consultants to solve their intractable problems. It is therefore more than ironical that the authorities are now forced to do just that in order to get their air safety issues sorted out in a very short time.

Yet looking at Asia in general, I do not think this reluctance is true as a whole. A lot of Asian-based companies have international staff and retain international consultants. Japanese companies have quite recently had western CEOs - e.g. Nissan and Sony. Even the mostly closed China looked to its overseas diaspora to provide the initial funding and expertise for Deng Xiao Ping's reforms!

[Up2U]

SK bans Thai airlines over safety concerns (continuing story).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politic ... 57521.html (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/South-Korea-bans-Thai-airlines-over-safety-concern-30257521.html)

[Up2U]

U.N. aviation agency downgrades safety ratings of Thai body
ReutersBy By Amy Sawitta Lefevre | Reuters

By Amy Sawitta Lefevre

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand's civil aviation body is under scrutiny after the United Nations' aviation agency on Thursday downgraded its safety ratings for failing to properly oversee airlines under its jurisdiction, the Department of Civil Aviation said.

On its website, the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) listed Thailand with a red flag, which means it has been downgraded to Category 2 from Category 1.

This was because the Thai civil aviation authority's safety standards were "below the standards set", said a senior Thai Department of Civil Aviation official, who declined to be named, because of the sensitivity of the subject..... (read more)....

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-n-aviation- ... ml#BJ5qocD (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-n-aviation-agency-downgrades-safety-ratings-thai-104802588--finance.html#BJ5qocD)

[goji]

For travelling to Thailand, there are usually alternative airlines. So it is easy to avoid Thai.

Travelling within the region can be more difficult, as it is frequently necessary to use Thai or other regional airlines.

I also take the actual safety record of the airline into account. After all, Air France manage to get good safety ratings by all the box ticking paper pushers. However, they actually have had 4 fatal crashes in the last 20 years. Most of the other European flag carriers have had 0 fatal crashes in the last 20 years.

[thaiguest]

My take on this , is 1) as has been said before , too many a/c types, 2) too many retired thail airforce officers being made CEO, with no idea on running a private airline , and 3) as always in Thailand jobs for the boys, and lastly running planes to cites , both in and out of country which don't make a profit. Another point is fact that Asians don't like to ask for help , because of their fear of loseing face, there fore no western person would be employed in a senior position , unlike the 3 large middle eastern carriers, which have british CEOS or managing directors

Jobs for the boys for sure.
I took a London/Bangkok direct flight with Thai Airways 3 years ago. The flight was cancelled in Heathrow due to major engine problems so we were all put up in various London hotels for 24 hours. Business class in 5 star hotels the rest of us deployed here there and everywhere to very basic kips. The economy passengers were not given any information at all until an ad hoc group of passengers invaded the Thai Aiways office where the staff was busy arranging hotels for 1st class and business class only.
There was a group of young thai passengers who greeted the 24 hr delay with loud cheers. They were whipped off to 5-star hotels. When the flight finally took off next day this group of rich kids all filed into 1st class where the party continued- all freeloaders from high ranking Thai Airway families. I kid you not.
Etihad, Quantas and British Airways have Irish CEOs I think.

[GWMinUS]

No need for more than 2 hour stop over unless, of course, you are going for the cheapest fare in which case the stop over will be a lot longer and probably during the night.

Yes, right now Cathy Pacific is touting fares of US$763 RT from Los Angeles to Bangkok.
But try to book a decent schedule!!!
The return trip required a 10 hour layover in Hong Kong. NO WAY
But if you pay US$1005 you can get those 1 to 2 hours connections.
Good luck!!