The Impact of current political situation

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_new ... ?id=130563 (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=130563)

Good Article to read and make our views, particularly about the declining tourist arrivals. Now that the toursit arrivals are low and the low season is lower than before, what should be the over-night stay pay for the boy. Will this affect the boys and how do they normally react/behave in these market situations?

[thanatorn-old]

Just been chatting to my man in Pattaya and he has said it is dead = he works for one of the Transvestite show companies and said they have cut there number of shows from four to two daily at the moment as it is so quiet.

Question to those resident there - is it really that bad?

In those circumstances I should imagine the "boy business" could reach desperate levels, but I don't believe it is right to take unnecessary advantage of the situation, and if I were in that market I would still offer what I would normally do at any other time.

You are a good human being. I would do the same or more if not

[joe552]

It hardly seems right to take advantage of a worldwide economic slowdown by cutting back the tip one gives. The boys are also having to contend with higher food prices, etc. I'll be my usual generous self when there at the end of next week (sorry to keep mentioning that).

Question to those resident there - is it really that bad?



Hi thanatorn, in answer to your question, I believe it's worse. In my years as a resident here, approaching a decade and a half, although the past few years have been bad, I believe that the current low season is unprecedented to any I have experienced previously, in relation to how few tourist's there are around. However, I don't believe the reason for this has got anything whatsoever to do with the current political situation, as the very low number of people that there have been around this year, was a situation that existed long before the turmoil currently going down in Bangkok had even started.

For those ex pats residing in Pattaya that don't watch any news relating to Thailand, or bother reading about it in the newspapers, of which I believe there are a greater number than many would imagine, those guys wouldn't even be aware of what is taking place in Bangkok at present. Even for those of us that are aware, we are totally unaffected, as there is absolutely nothing happening here nor has there been, to give even the slightest indication of the trouble.

From what I understand from the friends I have in Bangkok, along with the posts I have read of the members here that reside in Bangkok, I am led to believe that apart from the immediate area around government house and a couple of other places close by, they have been pretty much allowed to continue with their lives, with very little change, if any at all, from the ones which is normal for them.

I have my own opinion/s as to why the tourist numbers are so drastically low this year, but don't believe as I said earlier, that the political situation in Bangkok has any bearing on those numbers whatsoever, not even in the slightest. The number of tourist in low season has been falling for the last three years, certainly in Pattaya anyway and during that first year, when the declining numbers were really noticeable for the first time in comparison to all previous years, the most often heard thing one could hear being said by bar owners and ex-pats alike, was: how low that particular first year was and how they had never known a low season like it. They were also pretty much unanimous in agreeing with each other, how it would be pretty much nigh impossible, for any of the following low seasons, to be anywhere near as bad as that one had been.

Unfortunately and to the surprise of most, in the two years following, not only has it got worse, but it has done so to the extent, that the current low season makes that one three years ago, look like high season in comparison. Is that last statement an exaggeration on my part? I honesty don't believe that it is. However, if any of my fellow ex-pats here in Pattyaya believe that it is, one thing is for sure, they wont be slow in telling me. ;)


Choc Dee thanatorn, I hope your forthcoming vacation will be a great one and I am sure it will be, as after all, there is not one solitary thing in any of what I have said above, that should prevent it from being so.




George.

[puckered_penguin]

Question to those resident there - is it really that bad?
Hi thanatorn, in answer to your question, I believe it's worse. In my years as a resident here, approaching a decade and a half, although the past few years have been bad, I believe that the current low season is unprecedented to any I have experienced previously, in relation to how few tourist's there are around. However, I don't believe the reason for this has got anything whatsoever to do with the current political situation, as the very low number of people that there have been around this year, was a situation that existed long before the turmoil currently going down in Bangkok had even started.

I have my own opinion/s as to why the tourist numbers are so drastically low this year, but don't believe as I said earlier, that the political situation in Bangkok has any bearing on those numbers whatsoever, not even in the slightest. George.

Of course the political uncertainty is having an effect on the number of arrivals. Phuket has seen a 50% reduction in arrivals, not helped by airport closures and train strikes. Pattaya is seeing large cancellations by Asian and Eastern Europeans as well as to a lesser extent Western Europeans. The prognosis for the high season is poor, with many countries posting some sort of travel advisory against travelling to Thailand.
The gay economy does not exist in isolation and a significant reduction in tourist arrivals in Pattaya will impact the total economy. Many boys working in bars have friends as well as girl/boy friends working outside of the gay areas. This will see their dual income fall and no doubt less boys available in bars, discos and on the beach etc.
Yes, you maybe right low seasons have steadily been getting worse over the last few years but then the number of new bars seems to have increased with new areas such as Jomtien and 3rd Road between Central and North Road. The latter catering to gays and straits but mostly Asian customers.
Watch out for more widespread strife with interrupted electricity supplies more airport closures etc. etc. if Samak returns to power. Why would anybody risk coming to Thailand for their annual vacation if this power vacuum continues?

Why would anybody risk coming to Thailand for their annual vacation if this power vacuum continues?

Because we love Thailand?

Question to those resident there - is it really that bad?
Hi thanatorn, in answer to your question, I believe it's worse. In my years as a resident here, approaching a decade and a half, although the past few years have been bad, I believe that the current low season is unprecedented to any I have experienced previously, in relation to how few tourist's there are around. However, I don't believe the reason for this has got anything whatsoever to do with the current political situation, as the very low number of people that there have been around this year, was a situation that existed long before the turmoil currently going down in Bangkok had even started.

I have my own opinion/s as to why the tourist numbers are so drastically low this year, but don't believe as I said earlier, that the political situation in Bangkok has any bearing on those numbers whatsoever, not even in the slightest. George.

Of course the political uncertainty is having an effect on the number of arrivals. Phuket has seen a 50% reduction in arrivals, not helped by airport closures and train strikes. Pattaya is seeing large cancellations by Asian and Eastern Europeans as well as to a lesser extent Western Europeans. The prognosis for the high season is poor, with many countries posting some sort of travel advisory against travelling to Thailand.


Hi puckered_penguin, I don't dispute any of what you have said above and have no reason to doubt, that what you say about the prognosis for the coming high season to be anything other than true. However, the main point I was trying to get across with regard to the current political situation, was by saying in my post:

I believe that the current low season is unprecedented to any I have experienced previously, in relation to how few tourist's there are around. I don't believe the reason for this has got anything whatsoever to do with the current political situation, as the very low number of people that there have been around this year, was a situation that existed long before the turmoil currently going down in Bangkok had even started.

If you reside in Pattaya, which by your comments in your post it would appear that you do, would you disagree with what I have said above?


Cheers,


George.

Watch out for more widespread strife with interrupted electricity supplies more airport closures ... if this power vacuum continues?Mind-boggling

The main reason for the low season drop in tourist numbers was the failing ecomomies of the US, UK, and Europe. People feel poorer because their properties have fallen in valure, they are poorer because mortgage repayments have gone up and inflation outstrips wage rises, and they feel less secure because unemployment is starting to rise. On top of all that, the cost of getting to Thailand has increased enormously.

The political turmoil will only start to have its real impact now. People buy tickets/book package holidays well in advance. That is to say, in terms of the Thai high season, the timing of the current troubles could scarcely be worse. People sick of the cold, wet English August might well be thinking of a winter holiday. Now they're likely to look elsewhere. Urgent measures are needed now to promote Thai tourism (like reducing landing charges at BKK). But with no effective government, such measures are unlikely to come.

That said, the so called sex tourists to Thailand are more resilient than most. They have more reason to cum.

... like reducing landing charges at BKKIs removing the 700 baht passenger charge at Bangkok likely to increase tourism? After all, it's less than the price of a hotel room, or a boy, for a night. I guess reducing the fuel surcharge may help - it's now a significant proportion of the fare. But that's something over which the Thais have no influence, except for Thai Airways itself. However most people have heard the stories about tourists unable to leave Phuket and so on, and if they're planning an overseas holiday over the New Year are likely to sat "Bugger it, Thailand's too unpredictable" rather than "Bugger it, Thailand's too expensive". As you say, to the hardened sex tourist whose erection has drained all sense of reasoning from his brain, this is not likely to make a difference

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

so many factors and so little time..remember SARS ?..then 9/11 and of course as some rightly points out, the collapsing economic stuation in the USA which sneezed and we all got colds. It all adds up. Just a 15% drop in tourism is catastrophic ( but those Russians will still come but do they spend much ?)

you are correct thanatorn-drag shows are the first to go the poor dears..there are just too many cocks in frocks for gainful employement.

It's even stymied the budding career of Homitern who was about to announce his first visit to Pattaya with a gorgerous drag act in which he sings 72 fab musical numbers from Showboat Annie Get Your Gun Kismit, South Pacidfic-Brigadoon-you name it and Homi would have been wowing eager farangs for a bit of good old nostalgia in his 4 hour non-stop act.

Sadly his contract has been cancelled.

aclaimed Bangkok dragster The Colonel in her dressing room
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee135/lunchtimeobooze/scary_drag_queens_91.jpg

[bing]

There may be a point of view you have not considered. Older guys, not having a permanent erection, myself being an exception. He He. We like the warm weather, nice people, and wonderful places to visit. There are many reasons to keep coming back to LOS. For me, tt has been some 15 years with a trip once or sometimes twice a year, Low season is an incentive for me, you don't have to fight the crowds in restaurants or bars. The political situation is a real concern for many, I speak primarily for myself. I don't mind a bit of political stress, but I will not go to anyplace where there is certain danger for a visitor.

... in the USA which sneezed and we all got colds.If you're still hoping for that permanent gig as my publicist, Doris, just remember my hatred of cliches

[Marsilius]

The "impact of the current political situation" is of minimal significance as an explanation for falling numbers. After all, if, like most visitors, you book your trip months in advance you could not have forseen this precise crisis - and the likelihood of someone cancelling at short notice (and losing all the money they'd already paid upfront) is not very great.

No, the current downturn in visitor numbers has longer term causes, each affecting some visitors (or their perception - because they read these things in the media). Taken together, though, they have had a marked impact. In no particular order, I would list:

1. hike in air fares because of oil prices
2. hike in virtually everything else that depends on oil for its delivery (i.e. virtually all commodities)
3. after years of seeing that the first Taksin governement's "social order" campaign is not going to be reversed after all, some have given up on a place that sends you back to the hotel far earlier than you'd like to go
4. while many Thai people are friendly, there is a strong sense that many do not really want foreigners in their country at all and are only suffering our presence because they need to earn our money
5. rising crime rates - especially in Pattaya
6. increasing police activity means that innocent people are sometimes caught up in raids, locked up until they can produce a passport, etc.
7 the perception that Thailand's institutions - and especially the police - are corrupt, adding to the impression that Thailand is a place where you will probably be ripped off in some way - and without redress
8. the single-male niche market that Thailand had virtually tied up - and that guaranteed a regular, loyal, solid base of visitor numbers - has been (wisely or unwisely) deliberately eroded by much of the above, in favour of encouraging "families". That, however, is a flawed concept as Thailand does not have the high quality infrastructure to attract that family market away from its regional rivals. Conversely, it does have the poor infrastructure, dirty beaches, ongoing reputation for sex, etc. that will repell many families. The family vacation market is also more fickle and responds negatively more quickly to increased oil prices, etc., than does the single male traveller who is determined to get to his one or two Thailand holidays per year come hell or high water.

[globalwanderer]

The current low tourist numbers are probably due to things outside Thai control. The future toursit numbers will be affected by current goings on. Samak back as PM!!!! Only to be booted out again if he loses his appeal on other cases!!! Oh well TIT

Homi - I didn't mean the departure tax, but the charge the airport makes to airlines for each aircraft landing. A number of airlines have moved some of their trafic away from Bangkok to other airports like Singapore and Hong Kong, especially on routes to Australia from Europe. This, I suspect, has helped push the price of flights to Bangkok up. For a couple of years I've been flying to Bangkok via Singapore because it was so much cheaper. Looking for flights now, I see that Hong Kong is almost 200 pounds cheaper than Bangkok. The loss of these flights also denies Thailand many tourists on stopovers. Most people can't be bothered to travel on anywhere. They just stop a few days to see somewhere different and have a rest.

Marsilius - I am sceptical about any but your first two reasons. Only dedicated Thailand watchers such as ourselves would know about any of them. And on the whole, we'll still coming. And if the sex industry didn't put people off a few yaers ago, why would it now?

A number of airlines have moved some of their trafic away from Bangkok to other airports like Singapore and Hong Kong, especially on routes to Australia from Europe.

Such as?

Qantas and BA. Plus one or two others. I can't recall which. Since it's you who wants to know, you look it up.

Qantas and BA. Plus one or two others. I can't recall which. Since it's you who wants to know, you look it up.

Just did. Couldn't find any (including Qantas and BA). Assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- since you are the one who made the assertion that you must have the facts. Never mind.

Qantas and BA. Plus one or two others. I can't recall which. Since it's you who wants to know, you look it up.

Just did. Couldn't find any (including Qantas and BA). Assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- since you are the one who made the assertion that you must have the facts. Never mind.

So sorry to hear you lost your Googling skills. And it was your last link with reality.

[globalwanderer]

Qantas added the route via Hong Kong as a response to virgin opening the route. BA tried a KL route. neither cut their LHR-BKK-Australia routes.

Qantas added the route via Hong Kong as a response to virgin opening the route. BA tried a KL route. neither cut their LHR-BKK-Australia routes.

Do you mean that Homesick was talking out his ass? What a surprise.

[globalwanderer]

Qantas added the route via Hong Kong as a response to virgin opening the route. BA tried a KL route. neither cut their LHR-BKK-Australia routes.

Do you mean that Homesick was talking out his ass? What a surprise.

given how many million Qantas paid for the additional Heathrow slots..... UH HUH. Oh and I sometinmes fly via Singapore.. it is part of the airline pricing structure. i could always get a cheaper flight from frankfurt to New york, via Heathrow with BA all the way than i could get heathrow - New York. On the same flights on the same dates. It's called filling the feeder planes and beating the competition

sorry Chao Na, still not going to do your Googling for you. You'll just have to learn to do it yourself. And if Global Gobbler's standing at Bangkok airport counting the flights in and counting them out, who am I to disbelieve him?

sorry Chao Na, still not going to do your Googling for you. You'll just have to learn to do it yourself. And if Global Gobbler's standing at Bangkok airport counting the flights in and counting them out, who am I to disbelieve him?

Is it so hard to admit you were wrong?

Au contraire, Cho Na. My previous post makes it clear I have total faith in Global Gobbler's assertion that the number of BA/Qantas flights has remained constant. Despite the article I read to the contrary. People say all sorts of things in newspapers. I believe the man on the ground.

Despite the article I read to the contrary.

A simple link is all it would take.

[joe552]

Think your analysis is spot on - hope this doesn't offend!

Au contraire, Cho Na. My previous post makes it clear I have total faith in Global Gobbler's assertion that the number of BA/Qantas flights has remained constant. Despite the article I read to the contrary. People say all sorts of things in newspapers. I believe the man on the ground."Constant"? Compared to when. QF/BA each have one flight in each direction every day, and only direct to Sydney. That is a drop from the time when QF used Bangkok as a regional hub, and had flights going to and from Frankfurt, Rome, Paris and Hong Kong. That is, they had up to five aircraft movements per day in each direction, from multiple Australian cities. If my memory serves me correct, they had two London flights a day. The reason why they changed to Singapore is well-known - when QF1 crash-landed at Bangkok airport some years ago, the Thai rescue vehicles took twenty minutes or more to reach the aircraft, by which stage all of the passengers had disembarked. QF management decided that such a response was unacceptable, and made plans to move their hub entirely to Singapore, which they did over the next year or so. QF now has three London flights via SIN per day

Now to landing charges. Per passenger these are a miniscule element of the fare - certainly nothing like the 200 pounds quoted as the difference between Hong Kong and Bangkok. As for it being cheaper to fly via Singapore than direct, that may be so but there are all sorts of factors at play there, including the load factors for the airline flying the LHR-SIN-BKK route and its desire to fill otherwise empty seats on one of those sectors (probably SIN-BKK)

The press today are reporting a 70% drop in tourist arrivals, and Thai Airways is reporting an overall 20% drop in passenger loads, all attributed to ongoing political problems.That can't be right. Marsilius has told us that people don't make short-term travel plans for long-distance travel ergo the non-passengers must have decided months ago not to travel here at this time

Homintern wrote:
"Now to landing charges. Per passenger these are a miniscule element of the fare - certainly nothing like the 200 pounds quoted as the difference between Hong Kong and Bangkok. As for it being cheaper to fly via Singapore than direct, that may be so but there are all sorts of factors at play there, including the load factors for the airline flying the LHR-SIN-BKK route and its desire to fill otherwise empty seats on one of those sectors (probably SIN-BKK)"

I agree that lower landing charges wouldn't directly reduce fares much, but if there were more direct flights to Bangkok because airlines were tempted to switch there because of the lower charges, this could have a more notable effect. Presumably, BA/Qantas charge substantially less for SIN-LHR than BKK-LHR because capacity is greater on the former route in relation to demand - hence the need to do more to fill otherwise empty seats. (I flew the SIN-BKK bit on Tiger or Air Asia, incidentally). I was, however, unaware of the QF1 incident at Bangkok. I certainly agree that lower landing charges would only stand a chance of tempting a major airline to switch hubs if all else were more of less equal. So I concede, in the case of BKK, they wouldn't.

The 200 pound difference between LHR-BKK and LHR-HKG is down to another Virgin/BA spat. They both offer the same fare, and Cathay now seem to be joining in. Still, does show what a bit of competition can do. Perhaps the Thais should start wooing virgins.

Presumably, BA/Qantas charge substantially less for SIN-LHR than BKK-LHR because capacity is greater on the former route in relation to demand - hence the need to do more to fill otherwise empty seats.That doesn't follow at all. Most of their passengers do not stopover in Asia, but are through passengers to London - or so my trolley-dolly chums tell me. It's the Asian airlines that have less convenient direct connections and more flights to their home city that would price in that way - and as it's their home city, landing charges are going to be utterly irrelevant. If you look at QF fares between London and Australia you'll see they are the same whether the transit point is Singapore or Bangkok - there would be no point to have it otherwise. Airlines have many other considerations than landing charges. I believe that KUL has deals on minimal landing charges, yet most airlines avoid the place. As an Australian I'm sure you'll appreciate the line (about the Malaysians, from my QF chum) - "Couldn't run a choko vine over a country dunny". QF feels the same way about the Thais, after their little incident I outlined in my previous post. I can remember sitting on a QF flight one day in Bangkok, waiting for a delayed push-back, while the captain gave us a piece of his mind over the PA about how inept the Thais are when running an airport

"as an Australian"

Egad, man. What are you saying? I just used to go there a lot. At Her Majesty's expense. (Well, suppose most Australians did too)