Nearly four years after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration stripped Thailand of its Category 1 safety rating, the nation again failed to restore its standing following recent FAA audit.

According to the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT), the FAA conducted an International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) technical review to assess the country’s ability to comply with safety standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and identified 26 safety issues that still require rectification.



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -s-455886/
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... y-1-rating

=

How embarrassing to invite the FAA for an audit while still having so many outstanding issues that need work.

Yes embarrassing indeed especially since Thailand knew exactly what they needed to accomplish in order to return its safety rating.

Why bother even inviting the Americans over if required task were not 100 percent compliant?

YIKES! One would think that Thailand would want to pass an ICAO audit before even considering an FAA audit. The ICAO audit is why the FAA downgraded Thailand.

I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?

These few threads will give you some answers:
Updated: Thai Airways (TG) confirms intent to return to the US: viewtopic.php?t=1366113
TG - JFK Cut, KIX-LAX Cut, LAX Non-stop: viewtopic.php?t=356385
TG Losing $5 Million A Month On JFK Route?: viewtopic.php?t=362465
Could TG relaunch BKK-LAX and BKK-JFK?: viewtopic.php?t=1407207
SQ/TG Direct To East Coast US How About MH?: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=318513
The Southeast Asia - USA Market: viewtopic.php?t=1347835
TG looking to resume US flights: viewtopic.php?t=1339067
Thai Airways Eyes US Comeback: viewtopic.php?t=600413

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?

The way they were previously run, fuel prices killed those flights (TG used to fly LAX-BKK and JFK-BKK). And now, with cut-rate 1-stop fares via China or the Philippines, there is less economic incentive to return, since the connection can be made through secondary airports like CTU, FOC, XMN, and WUH in China, or MNL in the Philippines...with a narrow-body to Thailand (except PR730/1, which is a high-density, lower MTOW A333 - not the 240t 309-seater, or a B77W). The common theme: a wide-body with less than 285t MTOW (228t B788, 254t B789, or 280t A359) can fly to the Asian transfer point, and a lighter plane to the final stop.

IINM, TG never found a buyer for those parked A345s and A346s.

How bad is it? Just curious as I have a flight on KE to HKT. I mean I know planes aren’t falling out of the sky going in and out of Thailand, but what does not having this actually mean?

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?

This is one of the factors,but the main factor is that the yields are low, since BKK is mainly a tourist heavy destination.

TG is one of the safest carriers. I wonder how they feel in the country.

SuseJ772 wrote:

How bad is it? Just curious as I have a flight on KE to HKT. I mean I know planes aren’t falling out of the sky going in and out of Thailand, but what does not having this actually mean?

Put on your parachute when you enter Thai airspace.

Ziyulu wrote:

TG is one of the safest carriers. I wonder how they feel in the country.

Generally with their hands.

I wonder how they keep on passing Australian, New Zealand and European standards? Though I note only TG flies to all those regions maybe they got an exemption?

questions wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

How bad is it? Just curious as I have a flight on KE to HKT. I mean I know planes aren’t falling out of the sky going in and out of Thailand, but what does not having this actually mean?

Put on your parachute when you enter Thai airspace.

Come on. It was a legit, non-hysterical question about what this actually means. Is this a Carrier implication (ie limited to TG)? Is this an airport implication (is BKK or HKT across all carriers in and out)? Is it a regulatory implication (pilot licenses and maintence in Thailand)? Or a mixture of all the above.

This site used to be great when people who’d didn’t know stuff asked questions and were answered by people who did know stuff.

But didn't they pass the ICAO safety audits recently? I recall reading that it was flagged but then passed again a year or two ago, but only the FAA upheld its warning.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nd-441939/

Also, does the fact that the major airlines have passed the IOSA audit compensate for the FAA red flag?

SuseJ772 wrote:

questions wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

How bad is it? Just curious as I have a flight on KE to HKT. I mean I know planes aren’t falling out of the sky going in and out of Thailand, but what does not having this actually mean?

Put on your parachute when you enter Thai airspace.

Come on. It was a legit, non-hysterical question about what this actually means. Is this a Carrier implication (ie limited to TG)? Is this an airport implication (is BKK or HKT across all carriers in and out)? Is it a regulatory implication (pilot licenses and maintence in Thailand)? Or a mixture of all the above.

This site used to be great when people who’d didn’t know stuff asked questions and were answered by people who did know stuff.

So read into it. It's an national aviation issue. TG may be fine, but Ii the eyes of the FAA (and ICAO before that) the national aviation authority, main airports, and ATC, are not.

As someone who's flown through Thailand about five times (most recently two weeks back) I've never had issues, but it isn't the best run aviation system for a consumer. Nothing dangerous, buit unexplained delays, an overly complex immigration setup (in BKK) that can probably create a view holes, etc.

Either way, even if this is lifted, can't imagine that TG would make money on a US route, and unless UA is really ridiing high on the horse, can't imagine any US airline flying to BKK anyway. More procedural than anything.

I just flew R/T HKG-HKT and experienced no issues. Anecdotal to be sure. However, after my visit to Thailand, I feel like it is the Russians that should be doing the safety audit. There must have been no less than 4 flights to Moscow / Russia around noon time, with more scheduled later in the day. With that many of its people "at risk", you'd think they want to give it a look see.

Given that Thailand is so tourist driven it is definitely not in their interest to have safety issues--get to work! If locals won't do it, outsource it to the Germans.

[url][/url]

hz747300 wrote:

I just flew R/T HKG-HKT and experienced no issues. Anecdotal to be sure. However, after my visit to Thailand, I feel like it is the Russians that should be doing the safety audit. There must have been no less than 4 flights to Moscow / Russia around noon time, with more scheduled later in the day. With that many of its people "at risk", you'd think they want to give it a look see.

Given that Thailand is so tourist driven it is definitely not in their interest to have safety issues--get to work! If locals won't do it, outsource it to the Germans.

I just flew REP-DMK on Thai AirAsia and prior to take off the flight attendant noticed my wife was using her phone and asked my wife to put her phone away, but missed that my wife had forgotten to buckle her seatbelt.

Lufthansa wrote:

I wonder how they keep on passing Australian, New Zealand and European standards? Though I note only TG flies to all those regions maybe they got an exemption?

Indeed. This is a good question. Thai Airways is still flying from all over Europe to Thailand.

This is surprising as Thai Airways flies to many other destinations and many other airlines also fly to Thailand. They are not in the same league as Iraq Air or Iran Air or Air Koryo like the FAA is making them out to be.

The FAA does not look at specific airlines like the EU does, they look at countries as a whole. The FAA may very well feel that TG is a safe airline, but that Thailand lacks proper oversight/regulation/security/whatever over their airports and aviation industry. Which may mean that while Thai Airways is safe now the country cannot properly identify and correct unsafe practices that Thai may do (willingly or unwillingly) in the future.

Lufthansa wrote:

I wonder how they keep on passing Australian, New Zealand and European standards? Though I note only TG flies to all those regions maybe they got an exemption?

TG did have a really hard time introducing a new aircraft type, they wanted to fly their new A350's to MEL but it got delayed for about a year I think due to CASA. MEL was suppose to be the aircraft's inaugural destination too.

The FAA review has more to do about a nation's overall aviation oversight and organizational structure that exist to manage the industry.

Based on previous reports the FAA found Thailand lacked some basic oversight of it's airlines and also lacked basic things like required number of inspectors for such oversight along with inadequate regulatory frame work.

According to the article, ICAO lifted the red flag two years ago. Are there new issues that the FAA identified? Otherwise the FAA seems to be concerned about ICAO standards that ICAO itself doesn't seem as bothered by.

dmstorm22 wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

questions wrote:

Put on your parachute when you enter Thai airspace.

Come on. It was a legit, non-hysterical question about what this actually means. Is this a Carrier implication (ie limited to TG)? Is this an airport implication (is BKK or HKT across all carriers in and out)? Is it a regulatory implication (pilot licenses and maintence in Thailand)? Or a mixture of all the above.

This site used to be great when people who’d didn’t know stuff asked questions and were answered by people who did know stuff.

Today, there is no sense of humor here. Also, the experts get their information from Wikipedia.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?

The way they were previously run, fuel prices killed those flights (TG used to fly LAX-BKK and JFK-BKK). And now, with cut-rate 1-stop fares via China or the Philippines, there is less economic incentive to return, since the connection can be made through secondary airports like CTU, FOC, XMN, and WUH in China, or MNL in the Philippines...with a narrow-body to Thailand (except PR730/1, which is a high-density, lower MTOW A333 - not the 240t 309-seater, or a B77W). The common theme: a wide-body with less than 285t MTOW (228t B788, 254t B789, or 280t A359) can fly to the Asian transfer point, and a lighter plane to the final stop.
.

I don't want to be rude, but obviously you have no idea regarding flights to Thailand from US.
Nobody uses Philippines as connecting point to Thailand.
BKK flights from US are mostly VFR or vacationers. The business sector is very thin. That doesn't mean that they don't sell C seats on those flights. They do, because the tickets are cut throat on BKK flights.
Main transfer points from US to BKK are Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong going West.
Flying in Eastern direction you have Emirates via Dubai, Etihad via Abu Dhabi and Qatar via Doha.
Fares to BKK via European hubs are for some reason expensive. If you would try to get ticket let say on Lufthansa IAD - Europe - BKK you would pay twice what you would pay on any other airline flying via Asian city or via ME.

And going back to airlines from Philippines, most flights to BKK are in wide bodies (PR 777 or A350 and Cebu A330s), out of season both airlines use mix wide body and A321s.

Now going back to the subject. TG can forget starting US in the next 18 months. Junta instead of focusing on existing problems, is focusing on bringing more Chinese 1 Baht tourists. They want to open 4 new airports in the next couple of years, but they can't keep up existing ones.

Thailand is generally a safe place to fly. If Thailand can pass European and other standards, why not FAA. Thailand is not overly concerned about loss of US certification as most of the passengers from US connect at some other point.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?

Around the time I was born, there was a healthy amount of service to Thailand by U.S. carriers.

NW had daily SFO-NRT-BKK, United had 3 weekly SFO-HKG-BKK and 4 weekly HNL-NRT-BKK, Delta of all airlines flew PDX-BKK using L-1011s.

In addition, I remember when there was service from Thailand/Singapore to both Vancouver, where I live, and Seattle. The daily CP/Canadian YVR-HKG service (I think DC-10-30 with additional fuel tanks) continued to BKK 3 days a week. TG served both cities, BKK-TPE-SEA-DFW. Whereas TG did BKK-YVR-YYZ. Don't exactly know when Thai pulled out of YVR and SEA, but I would hazard a guess that the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, and continued political instability in Thailand (especially considering things like the 2006 coup and the 2010 massacres of protesters), scared off U.S. carriers.

Can't say much about SEA, but here at YVR, service to Thailand ended when CP went bankrupt. CX then dominated this market (as well as Vancouver-India traffic), until Chinese carriers started muscling into CX's turf starting in the mid-late 2000s. SQ had SIN-ICN-YVR until the 2009 global financial meltdown. By 2011, CZ had started up at YVR, offering much cheaper prices to Thailand/Singapore/Malaysia/Indonesia/Vietnam. The SE Asian population here in Metro Vancouver is not particularly large, nor are there a lot of business ties between those countries and British Columbia. I think SQ kind of shot themselves in the foot by going all-in on SFO and LAX.

I know you asked about the U.S., but I think most Vancouver-SE Asia traffic today is handled by MU, CZ, BR, CI, MF. I wonder how much SEA-BKK/SIN/SGN traffic is handled by Delta, Hainan, etc., or by UA/SQ out of SFO/LAX, or maybe most people cross the border and fly out of YVR. Kind of like how India traffic would fly YVR-SEA-DXB-DEL via AS/EK (or drive/take the bus to Seattle) a few years ago, back when Seattle had double daily EK flights.

hohd wrote:

Thailand is generally a safe place to fly. If Thailand can pass European and other standards, why not FAA. Thailand is not overly concerned about loss of US certification as most of the passengers from US connect at some other point.

EASA doesn't 'certify' foreign oversight authorities like the FAA does because they do not have the resources to do so. They simply ban operators or countries of origin second parties have found deficient (IE: Indonesia, Venezuela etc.)

Thailand failed an ICAO audit, and still hasn't rectified 26 deficiencies.

Oddly enough, Indonesia is in FAA category 1 even they have worse safety standards than Thailand. Refer to JT610 as an example.

leftcoast8 wrote:

Delta of all airlines flew PDX-BKK using L-1011s.

I was on Delta's MD11 BKK/TPE/SEL/PDX sometime in early December 1992.

leftcoast8 wrote:

TG served both cities, BKK-TPE-SEA-DFW

I did TG's BKK/NRT/SEA/DFW sometime in August 1988 on their B742. The service was superb on Y.

Varsity1 wrote:

Thailand failed an ICAO audit, and still hasn't rectified 26 deficiencies.

Thailand passed its ICAO audit two years ago and has had its red flag removed. As a result, countries other than the US have loosened restrictions on Thai carriers. Whether the FAA has identified new areas of concern is not clear, but this is that agency's first assessment since its downgrade of the country.

For leftcoast8, to clarify:
"In addition, I remember when there was service from Thailand/Singapore to both Vancouver, where I live, and Seattle. The daily CP/Canadian YVR-HKG service (I think DC-10-30 with additional fuel tanks) continued to BKK 3 days a week. TG served both cities, BKK-TPE-SEA-DFW. Whereas TG did BKK-YVR-YYZ. Don't exactly know when Thai pulled out of YVR and SEA, but I would hazard a guess that the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, and continued political instability in Thailand (especially considering things like the 2006 coup and the 2010 massacres of protesters), scared off U.S. carriers."
The BKK-TPE-SEA flight did indeed go to DFW for a while but either before or after that (I believe it's after) it operated daily SEA-YYZ. I recall it being a DC10 and we could buy tickets just for the SEA-YYZ leg. I think the DFW thing stopped because it was not able to carry local traffic. TG never operated YVR-YYZ for same reason. I believe the overall service stopped because it became too expensive.

No news here. This is politics and more to do with a certain bully flexing some muscle to express their dissatisfaction about how a certain Military Government came into power. I just got back from a 3 week trip to Thailand which included 4 domestic flights on TG. TG is still a great and very safe airline. I'd rather fly on TG than on any of the Western airlines. FWIW Bangkok has been the #1 visited city in the world for tourists for the last 3 years. There will be an election very soon in Thailand and I suspect the election result will correlate with result of the next audit.

russyyz wrote:

The BKK-TPE-SEA flight did indeed go to DFW for a while but either before or after that (I believe it's after) it operated daily SEA-YYZ. I recall it being a DC10 and we could buy tickets just for the SEA-YYZ leg. I think the DFW thing stopped because it was not able to carry local traffic. TG never operated YVR-YYZ for same reason. I believe the overall service stopped because it became too expensive.

TG sent a variety of aircraft to SEA. 747-300, DC-10, A310, I think even the MD-11...

Varsity1 wrote:

EASA doesn't 'certify' foreign oversight authorities like the FAA does because they do not have the resources to do so.

It seems to me that the FAA doesn’t really have the resources either. It might be wiser for them to stop outsourcing aircraft certifications and do it themselves instead of spending time certifying foreign authorities.

TG could start BKK-YVR and serve some of the US market through AC & UA transborder routes at YVR. I mean it's better than not even being in North America.

Are the FAA the people who approved the 737 max? Maybe they should just accept the oversight of the European safety agencies until they rebuild their resources, expertise and professional impartiality .......

YYZORD wrote:

TG could start BKK-YVR and serve some of the US market through AC & UA transborder routes at YVR. I mean it's better than not even being in North America.

I think it's quite possible that it is better profit-wise for TG not to be in the Western Hemisphere at all (except maybe LHR, DUB, MAD, LIS, etc.).

I sincerely hope you are wrong. What do you have to back up your highly dubious statement? Have you even flown TG? They are among the better Asian carriers for sure and they do very well down under thank you.

I was unfamiliar with this subject so I pulled the following from the ICAO website:

USOAP audits focus on validating a State’s capability of performing safety oversight of its industry. The eight audit areas are assessed individually to ensure whether the State has effectively and consistently implemented the critical elements of a safety oversight system. They also determine if the States comply with ICAO’s safety-related Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and associated procedures and guidance material. The eight audit areas of a member state’s aviation system that the programme monitors are:

1. Primary Aviation Legislation and associated civil aviation regulations
2. Civil Aviation Organizational structure
3. Personnel Licencing activities
4. Aircraft Operations
5. Airworthiness of civil aircraft
6. Aerodromes
7. Air Navigation Services
8. Accident and Serious incident investigations

The ICAO gives an "Effective Implementation %" for each item during an audit. I pulled the data for Thailand, Indonesia (because that was mentioned in earlier posts) and the global average. Note the ICAO audits for both Indonesia and Thailand were performed in 2017. I could not determine the year for the global averages.

Item Ind. Thail. Global
1 71.43% 28.57% 73.78%
2 69.23 8.38 70.47
3 75.82 36.67 73.63
4 87.31 39.71 69.98
5 90.86 75.83 79.02
6 65.00 43.00 57.10
7 84.88 31.76 65.74
8 73.38 33.11 61.24

So, even if Thailand is off the red flag list, it appears from this chart they are still well below the global standards. I know the FAA has been taking a lot of flak lately, but if this data is truly representative of Thailand, I can see the FAA's cause for concern.

EBiafore99 wrote:

I was unfamiliar with this subject so I pulled the following from the ICAO website:

USOAP audits focus on validating a State’s capability of performing safety oversight of its industry. The eight audit areas are assessed individually to ensure whether the State has effectively and consistently implemented the critical elements of a safety oversight system. They also determine if the States comply with ICAO’s safety-related Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and associated procedures and guidance material. The eight audit areas of a member state’s aviation system that the programme monitors are:

1. Primary Aviation Legislation and associated civil aviation regulations
2. Civil Aviation Organizational structure
3. Personnel Licencing activities
4. Aircraft Operations
5. Airworthiness of civil aircraft
6. Aerodromes
7. Air Navigation Services
8. Accident and Serious incident investigations

The ICAO gives an "Effective Implementation %" for each item during an audit. I pulled the data for Thailand, Indonesia (because that was mentioned in earlier posts) and the global average. Note the ICAO audits for both Indonesia and Thailand were performed in 2017. I could not determine the year for the global averages.

Item Ind. Thail. Global
1 71.43% 28.57% 73.78%
2 69.23 8.38 70.47
3 75.82 36.67 73.63
4 87.31 39.71 69.98
5 90.86 75.83 79.02
6 65.00 43.00 57.10
7 84.88 31.76 65.74
8 73.38 33.11 61.24

So, even if Thailand is off the red flag list, it appears from this chart they are still well below the global standards. I know the FAA has been taking a lot of flak lately, but if this data is truly representative of Thailand, I can see the FAA's cause for concern.

Thank you. With the FAA deficient in one area, other areas will make sure they dot i's and cross t's.

This isn't TG, it is the Thai buracracy's ability to do what they say and have paper (digital) to prove.

Lightsaber

Varsity1 wrote:

hohd wrote:

Thailand is generally a safe place to fly. If Thailand can pass European and other standards, why not FAA. Thailand is not overly concerned about loss of US certification as most of the passengers from US connect at some other point.

EASA doesn't 'certify' foreign oversight authorities like the FAA does because they do not have the resources to do so. They simply ban operators or countries of origin second parties have found deficient (IE: Indonesia, Venezuela etc.)

Thailand failed an ICAO audit, and still hasn't rectified 26 deficiencies.

EASA does track foreign carrier safety at 48 countries, ie., even outside the boundaries of EU like UAE and Singapore.

EASA looks at a more detailed picture, unlike the FAA's binary system.

EASA mainly tracks airline safety, FAA mainly tracks regulator's ability to oversight.

Both systems have their own merits and demerits.

YYZORD wrote:

TG could start BKK-YVR and serve some of the US market through AC & UA transborder routes at YVR. I mean it's better than not even being in North America.

For now TG is code sharing with SN to YYZ, JFK and IAD with BRU connection ( Yes only East Coast )

nordikcam wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

TG could start BKK-YVR and serve some of the US market through AC & UA transborder routes at YVR. I mean it's better than not even being in North America.

For now TG is code sharing with SN to YYZ, JFK and IAD with BRU connection ( Yes only East Coast )

To the west coast much of the traffic to Thailand is handled by TG's Star Alliance partners (BR, NH). BR flies 12 weekly 77Ws to Seattle in summer, and daily to Vancouver. Plus out of YVR there's competition from JL, CI, CX...

Canadian Airlines/CP's YVR-BKK service was 6 weekly at its peak. (1995-96 I think?)

Thailand has been a mess ever since the Asian Financial Crisis. The political instability under the NCPO junta only compounds the problem. There's not much business travel from North America to Thailand, it's mostly out of southern California (LAX). Otherwise you're faced with low yielding leisure traffic. And from that angle, LCCs like Nokscoot have triggered an arms race on airfares.

I'm still angry that CAAT failed the category 1 audit. I wonder if TG will be blacklisted from the European Union (which it narrowly escaped in 2015)

hz747300 wrote:

If locals won't do it, outsource it to the Germans.

I hear the former management of the BER airport project are looking for work....