jacko

They didn't consolidate any flights, they cancelled some.Their words, on the Thai UK website. And as to Thai, I believe they cancel flights quite readily, reasons given being whatever, I have no proof that the floods were the reason this time. I do believe the floods are responsible for the price of computers going up though! I have had such an incidence related to me already. Coincidentally on Stickman... A Brit was told by Thai Airways that one of their two daily flights from London to Bangkok was cancelled because the crew were unable to get to the airport in Bangkok because of the flooding. Surely Thai, like most major airlines, has staff on standby upon whom they can call for contingencies such as this? Is it that there simply weren't enough passengers for two flights and an excuse was made to save face? Unwittingly they have perpetuated the idea that the flood situation is so bad that people can't get to the airport!

Well having experinece of the Middle East I do know you can get banged up quite easily. Jumping a red light in KSA would get you 30 days in the clink, no questions. Smoking a cigarette in Ramadan was rumoured to get you banged up until month's end. A friend received a summons for parking his car in a restricted place he had been nowhere near. It was only uncovered at the court that the police officer had written the registration number down wrong, my friend had a blue RX7 not a white Mazda. The result being my friend had to pay the fine anyhow as the Egyptian judge could not tell the Omani policeman he screwed up.

What is the matter, your resume isn't long enough?

Semantics and back pedalling.And the airport operations also have nothing to do with the floods in Bangkok (Suk). Or Thai's schedule and failure to adhere to it. Despite Thai using them as dubious excuses to renegade on flights they had scheduled then yanked from their customers, who had already paid for them.

I am sure it is supposed to tell me something, perhaps one of the quick minded young fellas could clue me in!

Because if it is a TOTAL reason, surely it is a sum of it's parts.The floods did not stop them flying the aircraft in any way whatsoever, as a reason, it doesn't hold water (haha). I suggest it was to save money, reduce costs, primarily, a business decision. You can take it back up the cause and effect train if you like, via reduced passenger load (cancellations) blah blah, floods, global warming, Chines fossil fuel burning. Thai didn't like your 'reduced passenger numbers' and chose floods... I saw the Thai announcement, it included the statement For your information, Suvarnabhumi Airport is still operating as normal That is erroneuous too, there are fewer Thai flights landing and taking off.

Back to Urban Pattaya myths... Gabor only pays 1000 baht!

Let us keep it in this millenium!

Thread fuck.......I hadn't been around the lake for a couple of years and was taken aback when I did so for Loy Kratong. There sure are a lot of bars and restaurants on that road now, looked like Blackpool front. (or Walking St circa 2003).

Or opposite Soi Excite on 3rd Rd. Mind you there isn't an Xcite any more, just rubble, and jolly good idea too!

I am suggesting that 'floods' was not the total reason, or even, like the OP, that Thai used 'floods' more as an excuse, rather than reason. There were passengers booked for the flight, there is no flooding at the airport, neither LHR, nor Survarnabhumi, and the flight was scheduled, then withdrawn. Despite the 'floods' there were plenty of flights going up and down in Thailand. The real reason could be attributed to lower passenger numbers, or the fact that Thai have little regard for schedules or inconveniencing passengers, cancelling flight with just a few days notice. Thai could have said due to 'reduced passenger numbers', but instead blamed the floods, which apparently is fine by you, but I think they should have blamed global warming! Then GE, then Bush.

Yes they put a fair effort into that, making sure it doesn't flood. I wonder why Bangkok did though?

Well Emirates did fly half full, Thai didn't.

Keeping Mum.

chai walla...

Glad to see I am not the only BM daft enough to take a pic of his backscratcher and go to the trouble of transferring it to the computer and attaching it to a post!

All interesting info. My last flight from Man was Etihad and I am afraid I felt their standard was slipping. I doubt my budget will go to First, but hey, perhaps I can get an upgrade!

Jerry Maquire.

Gary Sinise.

Poser, I can only afford the basic model...

My comment was really meant to say $86 is very cheap. Low taxes. I believe my last mileage ticket cost me approx $300 some years ago (ex-UK). It would be somewhat more these days I bet.

More accurate would be not to buy your baht in the UK, Travelex don't particularly compare well. As to airports, well many say the difference in So-you-want-a-boom-boom to Pattaya city isn't much.

Sally Field.

I once got a trip from Houston to London on Delta in their Biz/First (they only had coach and this Biz Class, but it was pretty close to a First Class to me). It was very good, quite different from their domestic crappy coach. Sadly those working days are behind me and the last of my 'miles' flew me First on BA, LHR-BKK. Doubt I would ever spring that much on a First ticket myself. Just $86 taxes?

Burt Reynolds.