Jump to content
Bangkok Ladyboys Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dav662

Thailand has been downgraded by the FAA

Recommended Posts

Thailand Civil Aviation Authority has been downgraded to Cat2 by the FAA. Thailand is utterly stupid to even get the FAA to come and do an audit. No Thai carriers fly to USA and hence there is no need for Thailand to accept an FAA audit. Now if EASA the European Aviation Safety Agency does it, it could be huge problems for the Thai airlines internationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAA, EASA or God himself could downgrade the Thailand Civil Aviation Authority to CAT 1,000,000 and it still wouldn't stop anybody here from

flying into BKK to do what we all enjoy doing in Bangkok :):):):):) .

No it may stop Thai airlines flying to other destinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thai air down graded to level 4 (Qantas, singapore cathay etc is a 7) nok is a 2, bangkok air is a 3, thai orient i think is the worst on the list and airasia thailand also is a 2. so why is thai air charging so much they are not a 1st world airline any more. its sad really i fly thai a lot only 7 hrs to bkk from perth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thai air down graded to level 4 (Qantas, singapore cathay etc is a 7) nok is a 2, bangkok air is a 3, thai orient i think is the worst on the list and airasia thailand also is a 2. so why is thai air charging so much they are not a 1st world airline any more. its sad really i fly thai a lot only 7 hrs to bkk from perth

Who has downgraded? I mean which Aviation Authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thai air down graded to level 4 (Qantas, singapore cathay etc is a 7) nok is a 2, bangkok air is a 3, thai orient i think is the worst on the list and airasia thailand also is a 2. so why is thai air charging so much they are not a 1st world airline any more. its sad really i fly thai a lot only 7 hrs to bkk from perth

Who has downgraded? I mean which Aviation Authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it may stop Thai airlines flying to other destinations.

The Post article (if I remember it right) said they were forbidden by the FAA to expand in the US (not a threat since Thai airlines don't even fly to the US). In Europe they are considering bans on further expansion (and maybe cutting back), which could hurt a lot since Thai airlines have many routes there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Post article (if I remember it right) said they were forbidden by the FAA to expand in the US (not a threat since Thai airlines don't even fly to the US). In Europe they are considering bans on further expansion (and maybe cutting back), which could hurt a lot since Thai airlines have many routes there.

The EASA audit has already been completed. Thai Airways who fly to Europe has no issues and can fly to Europe. The cutting back is a commercial reason and has nothing to do with Safety.

Like a lot of state owned enterprises Thai Airways has been a disaster commercially for sometime now.

They have a new guy at the newly formed civil aviation authority but as usual he will be replaced soon by an Air Force General who has no clue about civil aviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does have a bearing as the rating system grades each airline each year. the service side yes is a popularity poll. but the safety side is governed by the faa and other agencies on their record and their aviation safety agency which has been showen to be a joke. as Indonesia is .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does have a bearing as the rating system grades each airline each year. the service side yes is a popularity poll. but the safety side is governed by the faa and other agencies on their record and their aviation safety agency which has been showen to be a joke. as Indonesia is .

The main or the largest regulatory national organisations are EASA and FAA.

But they can only audit if any foreign Airline flies into their territory.

Otherwise they have absolutely no chance or authority of doing an audit.

Thailand was absolutely stupid and typical of Thai government that they had no idea that Thai Airways was going to stop their operations to USA.

Then they do not need to get the FAA or allow the FAA to do an audit of their civil aviation department.

ICAO is the only one who cannot be refused. ICAO had significant safety concerns about Thai civil aviation department because they did not follow their own procedures.

Now, any audit done by any international or national aviation agency on an airline is strictly confidential.

There is no way a magazine or an onepoll has that access.

The safety of any airline is not calculated by how many delays or breakdown an airline has but only by an internal audit by a regulatory authority.

So that's why these newspaper or magazine reports should not be accepted as facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Thai Airways who fly to Europe has no issues and can fly to Europe. The cutting back is a commercial reason and has nothing to do with Safety.

Like a lot of state owned enterprises Thai Airways has been a disaster commercially for sometime now..

thai is delaying the delivery of quite some A350 they purchased earlier. They are struggling to use the 380 in European routes due to the low LF Edited by scottie1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main or the largest regulatory national organisations are EASA and FAA.

But they can only audit if any foreign Airline flies into their territory.

Otherwise they have absolutely no chance or authority of doing an audit.

Thailand was absolutely stupid and typical of Thai government that they had no idea that Thai Airways was going to stop their operations to USA.

Then they do not need to get the FAA or allow the FAA to do an audit of their civil aviation department.

ICAO is the only one who cannot be refused. ICAO had significant safety concerns about Thai civil aviation department because they did not follow their own procedures.

Now, any audit done by any international or national aviation agency on an airline is strictly confidential.

There is no way a magazine or an onepoll has that access.

The safety of any airline is not calculated by how many delays or breakdown an airline has but only by an internal audit by a regulatory authority.

So that's why these newspaper or magazine reports should not be accepted as facts.

thai Airways has stopped flying To USA and that is fine, But the ban, till lifted, prevents them from flying If "tomorrow" they decide to fly again to USA.

It is also enforced on any Thai registered plane, as general aviation or cargo. So it is still a nuisance, minor as I don't think many others Thai planes fly into USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look up airlineratings.com also on thai visa story hppt://whatsonsukhum...nes-for-safty/

 

It's all very well to give a website adress, but who is behind the website ? After clicking this adress, I found a homepage with articles dealing with Qantas, TWA (indeed), and Air New Zealand, looking like advertisements, as well as an advertisement for Etihad.

 

IMHO, the Thai aviation authorithy should have a precise denomination, should be a branch of the THai Ministry of Transports and, except the Thai government, can be officially criticized by the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) itself or the APAC (Asian and Pacific office of the ICAO). In order to avoid mixing true information and gossips, I made a quick search in Google.

 

The Thai Authorithy for aviation is the DCA : Department of Civil Aviation.

In Wikipedia, they say that ICAO "rejected a safety plan put forward by the DCA, which was submitted to ward off an imminent aviation safety downgrade." Although anybody can write any BS in Wikipedia, it seems that ICAO auditors found serious gaps in safety standards and budgets in Thailand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they found significant safety concern in the way Thailand has given air operators certification to some thai airlines. ICAO gave Thailand enough notice to rectify it but in typical thai fashion they messed it up. Then to make matters worse they invited the FAA for an audit thinking it will have a better outcome. But it was worse.

Now they got help from EASA and got a better result. In fact Thailand has only two major issues. One was on dangerous goods and the other was giving this air operators certification to some airlines.

If they had suspended these licenses then the major concern would have been removed.

Now due to the action by FAA Thailand has decided to go for the EASA certification system.

Actually there is huge commercial rivaly between FAA and EASA. But EASA is winning due to Europe and of course the former British colonies. If FAA had not done this I think Thailand would have gone for FAA certification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all very well to give a website adress, but who is behind the website ? After clicking this adress, I found a homepage with articles dealing with Qantas, TWA (indeed), and Air New Zealand, looking like advertisements, as well as an advertisement for Etihad.

.....

Although anybody can write any BS in Wikipedia, it seems that ICAO auditors found serious gaps in safety standards and budgets in Thailand.

agree... With all respect for any forum or posters, I don't think thaivisa, for instance, has the authority to be taken as an official information.

I had a dispute somewhere else claiming a certain airline had poor safety records as not listed in website listing safety approved airlines (what that could ever be, btw). The website was not an authority one but a sort of forum on aviation. In addition that list was dated November 2004: the airline we were debating on was established December 2004!!! Quite tough to be listed if you don't exist yet!

Fact was that that guy had a negative opinion on that airline based on a "no-fact" and not on official website.

Rumours tend to become facts through the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now due to the action by FAA Thailand has decided to go for the EASA certification system.

Actually there is huge commercial rivaly between FAA and EASA. But EASA is winning due to Europe and of course the former British colonies. If FAA had not done this I think Thailand would have gone for FAA certification.

perfect summary!

As any "governmental" agency, they are both asked to be efficient and profitable (at least show they are, as most likely they still suck public funds from tax payers).

So they sell services on competing basis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if ther rivalry between American and European companies involves a rivalry between the FAA and the EASA. The fact is that the DCA (Thailand didn't meet the ICAO standards, so they were downgraded.

 

There might have been a process in the ICAO saying that the EASA would help and the FAA would audit, but if the DCA had met the required standards, it wouldn't have been downgraded for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if ther rivalry between American and European companies involves a rivalry between the FAA and the EASA. The fact is that the DCA (Thailand didn't meet the ICAO standards, so they were downgraded.

 

There might have been a process in the ICAO saying that the EASA would help and the FAA would audit, but if the DCA had met the required standards, it wouldn't have been downgraded for sure.

P&G. There is huge rivalry between these two agencies. Both are trying to get countries to follow their system. To be frank this has created huge issues as ICAO is the international regulator but allows national agencies to be stricter than ICAO requirement.EASA is a lot more stringent than FAA and ICAO

That said it was the incompetence of Thai DCA that brought this.

What I was highlighting was in typical Thai style they made a bad situation worse. They knew that the Civil Aviation department cannot be running airports and then still be giving them airport operator licences but they did nothing about it.

Lack of English was the other major issues they need an ICAO approved language for all documentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×