Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
AlexBrewster03 wrote: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?
AlexBrewster03 wrote:I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand flights?
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?
Ziyulu wrote:TG is one of the safest carriers. I wonder how they feel in the country.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
.
AlexBrewster03 wrote:I’m sure this is a stupid question, but is this why there are no US-Thailand 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.
leftcoast8 wrote:Delta of all airlines flew PDX-BKK using L-1011s.
leftcoast8 wrote:TG served both cities, BKK-TPE-SEA-DFW
Varsity1 wrote:Thailand failed an ICAO audit, and still hasn't rectified 26 deficiencies.
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.
Varsity1 wrote:EASA doesn't 'certify' foreign oversight authorities like the FAA does because they do not have the resources to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
hz747300 wrote:If locals won't do it, outsource it to the Germans.