Good for Thai airlines. The pilot had the safety of the passengers and aircraft in mind. if clowns are ignored, it only encourages them to carry on being clowns.
Considering that the passenger is quite well-known and his post on facebook was quickly spread. His words really disrespected the pilot who followed the standard. Since you can sue someone because of defamation, I don’t think Thai is “thin-skinned” on this at all.
@@angelareader932the national pilot's association and the public did. Public opinion was that airline must protect its own employee, especially when the passenger in question used derogatory and sexist terms.
Good work by airline. One of another stupidity people are doing with social media. Instead contacting respective company and getting sorted out just using social media.
There are stronger laws on defamation in Thailand. There was also cases that guests have been sued for bad reviews. Different laws folks. I am trusting Thai airways. I can wait few hours for safety. I have no rush to enjoy thrilling experiences.
@Bloboii not really, the minima of CATIIIB is generally from 75 metres RVR and below depending on thr airport with no decision height Edit: 75 metres is for runway 16 at Melbourne*
Do they have ILS Cat 3 (both airport, pilots, and plane required)? Maybe they just didn’t have enough additional fuel beyond legal requirements to hold until the fog cleared
The case will end up being counter effective! In fact, personally my opinion of the airline is that it’s too petty. You don’t go about suing every passenger who criticise you. That’s too petty, unprofessional and vindictive!
It is not petty at all. It is really bad for someone to criticise someone else for taking safety precautions, that sort of pressure would just lead to people ending up dead. The reason why aviation is safe is because safety comes first.
@@carlosquinto1383 Airlines just need to give statement and let it go. Suing passengers will make people avoid using Thai Airways because people think Thai Airways cannot accept criticism.
@@angelareader932It's the other way around, local public opinion so far was that not holding the passenger in question accountable for malicious falsehood would show that the company doesn't even value its own employee. That's a big hit to the credibility. It was also the public that roasted him to the point that he was forced to resign from board of director in the company he work for.
Thai Airways really has no leg to stand on this lawsuit. hundreds if not thousands of irate passengers take to the net to voice their frustrations about their experience everyday. For TA to single-out this customer for being critical of their service really is soft-skinned and most certainly not defamation.
Fortunately, I have no bias against TG. One cannot expect company that resort to leaving its own employee to bear the brunt of sexism and malicious false accusation for the sake of 'accepting criticism' image to be reliable after all, and local public opinion seems to wholeheartedly agree. Kudo to the management for knowing how to appease their actual customer base.
ΑNY passanger is free to write ANYTHING without fear of being sued - otherwisew, there is no freedom of speech! Thai should contact the passenger, explain the situation and ask him to remove/change his post. If the latter would do that, fine. If he wouldn't, Thai could publicly disclaim him, explaining to the public how harmful such unbased criticism is - but that's it! Suing your customer should be prohibited!
I don’t think you fully understand the legal definition of “freedom of speech”. In the US (where this didn’t take place) it means the government can’t limit what you say. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without repercussions and it doesn’t apply to non-government officials entities.
Typical customer thinking they know whats best.
True
No ...Typical Thai mentality. Cant criticize a corporation or any business, The customer is NEVER king in Thailand
Classic example of the Streisand effect in action, I'd not have known about this without them suing the passenger
Exactly what I was thinking. 😂
Same.
Good for Thai airlines. The pilot had the safety of the passengers and aircraft in mind. if clowns are ignored, it only encourages them to carry on being clowns.
I am sure I would now fly Thai because safety is their priority.
agreed.
The passenger literally called the pilots unprofessional
They pulled the uno reverse card😂
Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.
I side with Thai Airways
They’re still not going to let you smash.
It's not uncommon to hear visitors to Thailand criticising all things Thai. And litigation for defamation seems to be the Thai way.
Someone took Air Canada to court over their chatbot and won
Considering that the passenger is quite well-known and his post on facebook was quickly spread. His words really disrespected the pilot who followed the standard. Since you can sue someone because of defamation, I don’t think Thai is “thin-skinned” on this at all.
The correct term is thin skinned. You repeated the narrators mistake.
@@StopMediaFakery edited, thanks.
Yes, the airline must go on with the law suite so that passengers will be responsible before posting.
In aviation, some cases stated passengers are always bias and the fools because they didin't think carefully or didin't analyzed the situation.
there was so much backlash towards the poster it pressured the airline to proceed legal action. (according to the local news)
I don't think that's the case. No one force Thai Airways to sue the passenger.
@@angelareader932 exactly, no one did. its just the people are rooting for the airline to in practically all of the airline's social media.
@@angelareader932the national pilot's association and the public did. Public opinion was that airline must protect its own employee, especially when the passenger in question used derogatory and sexist terms.
Backseat pilot 🤣
Passenger Thinks they are the aviation expert
Can Thai Airways start flying to Brisbane again
If he knows so much perhaps he can just fly himself there. So done with passengers who think that they know better
How does the passenger know about lack English competency of the crew?
This will keep those pesky passengers in their place.
Good work by airline. One of another stupidity people are doing with social media. Instead contacting respective company and getting sorted out just using social media.
It’s been decades since I’ve flown with Thai airlines. There are simply better deals out there.
Thai just don’t let them fly with you again
Guess who won't be allowed back into Thailand
No.
The passenger is acting so entitled. Ew
How to complaint about Thai airways what is the complaint website or email. Kindly mentioned me please
Ignorance is bliss and posted on social media.
Way to go Thai Airways!!
The a350 can land in zero visibility.
if the runway is equiped so
Melbourne is not equipped for that
So did other aircrafts started and landed the same time or not? easy to proof at flight radar
There are stronger laws on defamation in Thailand. There was also cases that guests have been sued for bad reviews. Different laws folks. I am trusting Thai airways. I can wait few hours for safety. I have no rush to enjoy thrilling experiences.
I think its also Thai is owned by the Thai Goverment
It is correct that thai Airways is prosecuting this all knowing look how clever I am passenger, this type of behaviour is ruining society
Because it's a Thai company, and the passenger will get done from deframing the company. They don't like criticism. That's the way it is.
deframing?
Love this😊😊😊😊😊
does the airport not have ILS?
There are still limitations...
10nm range of visibility=Cat III limit i think-
@Bloboii not really, the minima of CATIIIB is generally from 75 metres RVR and below depending on thr airport with no decision height
Edit: 75 metres is for runway 16 at Melbourne*
@@tsarwilliams8912 thanjs for letting me know! Im still learning types of navigation.
No, they only have cat 1 which doesn’t allow autoland
Do they have ILS Cat 3 (both airport, pilots, and plane required)?
Maybe they just didn’t have enough additional fuel beyond legal requirements to hold until the fog cleared
No, Melbourne does not have cat III
Good
Typical, big business gets upset and goes after the little guy, blah, blah, blah, blah….
✈️
3:08 Qatar Airways is also one.
Josh Cahill
Aren't pilots trained to land in low visibility??? It's called instrument flying... or am I wrong?
They are and there are systems in place to do this but it’s just for safety purposes
@@Towel39855 ?? Pilots have landed in extreme fog, like 5m of visibility, practically 0, soooooooo……..
Not in Melbourne
I think pilots aren't trained to land in 200M visibility due to the pandemic I guess
Yes. That has happened. But that depends if the airport and aircraft are equipped with the proper equipment@@oluseyeajose-adeogun2642
The case will end up being counter effective! In fact, personally my opinion of the airline is that it’s too petty. You don’t go about suing every passenger who criticise you. That’s too petty, unprofessional and vindictive!
It is not petty at all. It is really bad for someone to criticise someone else for taking safety precautions, that sort of pressure would just lead to people ending up dead. The reason why aviation is safe is because safety comes first.
@@carlosquinto1383 Airlines just need to give statement and let it go. Suing passengers will make people avoid using Thai Airways because people think Thai Airways cannot accept criticism.
@@angelareader932It's the other way around, local public opinion so far was that not holding the passenger in question accountable for malicious falsehood would show that the company doesn't even value its own employee. That's a big hit to the credibility. It was also the public that roasted him to the point that he was forced to resign from board of director in the company he work for.
Thai Airways really has no leg to stand on this lawsuit. hundreds if not thousands of irate passengers take to the net to voice their frustrations about their experience everyday. For TA to single-out this customer for being critical of their service really is soft-skinned and most certainly not defamation.
I fear Thai law might judge that differently. From what I know they have quite protective laws for their companies in regards to defamation.
They could only win if the passengers Lied about the events that transpired.
@@nntflow7058This seems to be the case.
@@nntflow7058They could also win if they can prove that the passenger was factually incorrect
No cat III ils at Melbourne so they legally can’t land there
Fortunately never use Thai Airways. Cannot stand business that cannot accept criticism and resort to lawsuit.
Fortunately, I have no bias against TG. One cannot expect company that resort to leaving its own employee to bear the brunt of sexism and malicious false accusation for the sake of 'accepting criticism' image to be reliable after all, and local public opinion seems to wholeheartedly agree.
Kudo to the management for knowing how to appease their actual customer base.
ΑNY passanger is free to write ANYTHING without fear of being sued - otherwisew, there is no freedom of speech! Thai should contact the passenger, explain the situation and ask him to remove/change his post. If the latter would do that, fine. If he wouldn't, Thai could publicly disclaim him, explaining to the public how harmful such unbased criticism is - but that's it! Suing your customer should be prohibited!
I don’t think you fully understand the legal definition of “freedom of speech”. In the US (where this didn’t take place) it means the government can’t limit what you say. It doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without repercussions and it doesn’t apply to non-government officials entities.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of defamation!
@@mzan2691 Defamation is when IES are involved, not different assessments!
@@jimmyj1969 This is Thai laws, not US definition
FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
lol this isn’t America. But might not be Australia either because companies can’t sue for defamation there
Not even in America does the 1st Amendment protect against the consequences of saying that which causes offense to someone.
The 1st Amendment only protects citizens against the govt, not private enterprizes
Defamation is illegal