Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 November 2018 14:41

new2here

Members
  • Content Count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

262 Excellent

About new2here

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday December 17

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bangkok, Los Angeles , Honolulu

Recent Profile Visitors

3,033 profile views
  1. I do agree that having a 2-tier rate system isn’t ideal and that could create income inconsistencies... That said, I think a 2-tier system IS fair IF there is a material difference in the service or product on offer... Hoever, I also think that given where taxi services - driver standards, car/ride quality - are (IMHO) at in the metro Bangkok area (and I cede that the situation can be radically different in other cities) I am not so sure that a fare hike is justified. I am not the biggest fan of supporting a rare hike UNTIL a proven record of service quality is achieved FIRST. I would be 100% supportive of a fare hike IF I could see a verifiable reduction in proven complaints like “not using meter”, “no pick-up” and such... but until such takes place, I just can’t see the merits. i agree that costs continually rise and incomes have largely stagnated.. but I don’t think that issue alone (the disparity between rising expenses and stagnant wages) justifies a wage hike without some form of a corresponding improvement in the product.
  2. I agree.. and sadly that is the real-world relationship that exists between management and labour in many companies of size... Here’s my take. In and of itself the TG policy/CBA language that governs staff NRPS travel, most likely looks almost identical to that of many other major carriers .. so to that end, I don’t think TG is doing anything that is radically different.. Here’s where I think it went bad if you will. I’ve long held that the issue that really makes MORE people upset is not the rule itself - but it is the HOW that rule is enforced; that being the behavior, attitude, speaking tone, facial/body language etc. Sure, it’s never going to be a popular policy that certain NRPS passengers can bump (IDB/IDG) revenue passengers... and also true, for the most part, it is those passengers fares that really provide the lifeblood of the carrier.. that’s true too... but I think there will be times - few I think of you really were to dig down and look at the hard numerical data - where the contractual rights/company policy and paying customer expectations collide and a mutually exclusive situation exists. On THIS case, again without benefit of seeing the whole series of events, it really sounds like more of an “execution” failure or doing it badly, than it is the rule/contract/policy itself. IF the pilots contract correctly applied to the current case situation, gave them the contractual right to F-cabin, then that’s what TG should have given them full stop. But... i also think concurrent to that a hard look at how that situation is going to be handled is also a requirement... it’s that last part where I think the true failure originated. Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
  3. The US does have the I-327 which functions largely the same as the Thai re-entry.
  4. I do get it that from a court of public opinion or viewpoint NO CARRIER will ever “win” when it comes to IDBing or IDGing a revenue passenger for that of a staff member -pilot, flight attendant, senior manager or wherever... its just not going to happen .. and I think carriers know this too. but... at the end of the day, in most cases, the practice of IDGing someone IS a contractually permissible practice unless applicable local law states contrary.. the same is almost always true for IDBing one one as well.. so long as the carriage of contract rules were followed, then it’s usually permissible - again, so long as local applicable law doesn’t say otherwise. Was TG in the “right” here? With the caveat that I don’t have all the facts/data- i would say yes they were right in their right or ability to downgrade a revenue passenger to make way for an NRPS must-ride... BUT... I would ALSO say they were wrong in the HANDLING of it. These matters really should never be done at or near deaparute time.. unless it was a last-minute NRPS booking (which at a line station, I’d be surprised if it was) it should have all been done and finished before the first pax hit the loading bridge. drama at departure time is never conducive to on-time departures.
  5. “Fraud”. I doubt that. Thai contact of carriage section 9.2.4 holds that “... If we are unable to provide previously confirmed space, we shall provide compensation to those Passengers denied boarding in accordance with applicable law and our denied boarding compensation policy.” Therefore, it would appear that by virtue of agreeing to purchase said ticket a passenger has also agreed to said contractual terms.. so long as TG complied with them, then I think making a legally defensible claim of fraud will be a monumental stretch. Section 9.2.4 does appear to give TG an “out” for failing to provide said previously paid and confirmed transportation - so long as IDB is paid. One may not like it... may call it trash, rubbish or what have you, but it appears that TG does retain that right. It will never be passenger-popular, but most elements contained in the contract of carriage are for the protection of the carrier and not for the passenger— that’s where National consumer rights and such come into play. i do however believe that something went sideways on the ground before boarding and wasn’t properly handled — and that unresolved issue continued to delay departure.
  6. Quite correct. in *most* cases staff traveling as must-ride NRPS’ are of a higher or highest priority — and that includes over and above a full/fare F class pax. Unsavory to the visual? Yes, absolutely, but that’s how it is. in many cases where the carriers contractual obligations to a passenger intersect with that of a carriers contractual obligations to a staff member, usually the staffs right take precedent. one thing I think that is also worth noting is that a specific seat assignment is rarely ever a contractually guaranteed element of travel and in most all cases a carrier retains the right and is free to change that seat assignment at any time, without advance notice to the passenger and with no requirement for compensation* (so long as the new seat is still in the same ticketed cabin, otherwise it would be an IDG)
  7. To me, if the state really wanted to get heavy-handed then they could do something like a court-ordered garnishment or seizure. Those that didn’t pay would be presented to the court. The court can then approve (or not) an order of garnishment. The government would then present that court garnishment and seize funds in any of the major banks whose records showed accounts under that persons national ID. Given that a Thai must present their national ID card to the bank at time of opening an account and the number doesn’t change, I’d reasonably think that finding assets held in a Thai bank by a Thai national would be fairly easy.
  8. It sounds like these folks were classified as NRPS or non-revenue positive space. That means they are traveling with confirmed booking and are guaranteed a seat... just like a paying or revenue passenger. the next element that must be addressed is what is TGs specific policy - and each airline may set their own - on NRPS passengers. Some carriers have what’s known as MUST-RIDE NRPS bookings.. this means that IF the flight is oversold and the carrier has to deny boarding- known as involuntary denied boarding or IDB (after asking for volunteers), they can NOT choose to IDB the “must ride” — s/he must travel on that flight. The next element that has to be addressed is class of travel. This is where both carrier policy AND collective bargaining agreement (CBA) language come into play. it IS possible that the two people in the story were traveling under CBA language that provides for and requires TG to provide first class travel (usally defined as the highest class of travel on any given aircraft model given that some aircraft are 2-cabin only) or any given class of seat. IF that was the case, then TG would be correct to IDG (involuntary downgrade) a number of revenue passengers out of F down into C/J cabin *with proper IDG fare adjustment* being refunded. The part that to me sounds odd is that normally all this is taken care of well in advance of boarding or departure. Normally anyone traveling NRPS is booked in advance and local staff would know: a) they have folks traveling NRPS, b) they are “must rides” and c) their booking is one that can’t be IDGed So if this would have created an overbooking scenario in the F cabin, local staff would have sorted that out before check-in, decided who was going to be IDGed, altered the booking of the downgraded pax and cut whatever compensation due. i would be very surprised if this took place airside or at time of boarding or departure. I do agree that it was wise not to depart until the matter was properly sorted.
  9. I do think that time and time alone does not automatically equate to quality. To me, it’s much more to do with how is that time - be that 4 or 5 years - used. I think it’s very possible to have a much more effective programme that is 4 years opposed to 5 years... and the reverse is also true. its all about how is that time used. Id support a hard, objective and perhaps external (by folks from outside the academic world or even non-Thai education experts from counties whose system ranks better) review of how the teachers programme is currently structured (5 year) and the proposed 4 year programme change would be beneficial.
  10. On South Sathorn they have one contra-flow lane that starts at Surasak and allows people to by-pass BCC.. to me, that’s a fair idea. While it’s not a permanent solution, given that there is apparently more volume coming over the bridge eastbound, it seems logical to contra-flow one westbound lane for only a 1-2 “block” zone as a bypass for BCC.
  11. No. The Immigration office/desk (speaking for Suvarnabhumi only) where they process reentry permits is physically located just after or behind the outbound immigration processing area. So... the only way for a passenger or general public to access this office/desk, is to have first been security screened AND competed and been “stamped out” of Thailand... both of these steps require you to have and show security access staff and immigration officers, a valid same-day boarding pass issued for a flight out of suvarnabhumi.
  12. I agree that an office isn’t your home per se.... but... I also think that employers, especially those thst want to have a competitive edge when vying for top talent potential employees - have got to be flexible and willing to look outside the box if you will, and create work environments that’s today’s generation employees want. when I started working the idea of bring your dog to work would be unheard of and laughable.. but.. today I see why it’s offered and if i was an employer in today’s marketplace, and if I seeking to recruit and retain top talent, I’d be willing to explore ideas like bring your dog to work. Just like today I see many offices that have well equipped employee break rooms - some with catered food, outside services etc.. all things that my dads office never had and would never had thought to offer. i just think you have to adapt to the times and offer a workplace that today’s employees say they want.
  13. The ugly truth here is that an actuarials’ service would be wise. IF the goal truly is to determine what is the economic loss here, then to me, that’s an actuarial type question.. just like life insurers use when setting premium rates. Now that said, there IS another part... that’s the emotional loss and even punitive losses if you will.... but to me, that’s a different matter than the original question here of what’s the girl life worth. Without the benefit of the data tables and such, Id hazard a guess that it’s far in excess of 1MM... but a lot of that depends on the data tables and what do they say for a female born in ax year and with an expected life span of Y years - less the costs incurred (which now would not be invited) to sustain said life.
  14. I can see both sides and in my head it kind of comes down to what some call a “heartless versus headless” argument/issue in that each “side” tends to be of a mutually exclusive nature and implies the opposing viewpoint can’t or shouldn’t exist. In THIS case I’d wonder if there is room for a compromise that address the fact (based on what I read here only) that there appears to be a legitimate claim of immigration law violation — but also allows for the group to continue what they’re doing - which again, only from what’s written here, sounds like it’s in the kingdoms best interest... a win-win so to speak.
  15. new2here

    Teacher exams held nationwide

    I understand that it’s a 2-day event with 3 subjects on day 1 and 2 more on the second day. There are 150 points possible each day and you need a 60% score to pass each of the two days ... again, as I understand it. If the minimum passing is in fact 60%, then I’m not so sure of the output quality... but I’d have to see how the test is written and overall difficulty level.
×