Thread: Pad Let Off The Hook

AVIATION

PAD LET OFF THE HOOK
20/02/2009

Foreign carriers feel pressing charges against protesters is not worthwhile, writes Boonsong Kositchotethana

Many airlines and aviation service providers are allowing the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to go scot-free for seizing Bangkok's airports, which cost the economy more than 200 billion baht and ruined Thailand's international image.

International airlines such as British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Etihad Airways, Singapore Airlines and local carriers such as Bangkok Airways and Thai AirAsia are not pushing lawsuits to seek compensation for the damage done by the anti-government movement last year.

In a survey of players in the aviation industry by the Bangkok Post, there seems to be a consensus among them that an endeavour to pursue legal action against the PAD may not worth the energy, time and costs involved.


Most airlines have written off their losses as the cost of civil unrest and are moving on with the business of staying aloft through the crisis.

They are resigned to what they regard as the ''civil unrest'' nature of the event after consulting with their legal experts who indicated that it might be difficult to win the case in civil courts.

They considered this sort of unrest part of the risks they have to assume while doing business.

Some also sense that the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration is not really keen to hold the PAD accountable for laying siege to Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports from Nov 25 and Dec 4 last year in spite of the disastrous effects it caused.

Thousands of the PAD activists stormed the airports to demand the removal of the Somchai Wongsawat government which they accused of being a corrupt nominee of the fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The protesters dispersed after a court ruling to dissolve three parties brought down the government.

The blockade left 350,000 visitors stranded and prevented 3.4 million tourists from visiting Thailand, severely denting the kingdom's tourist-friendly image.

The most recent study by the Bank of Thailand estimated losses of 210 billion baht from the airport closure. That amount represents 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) based on 2009 prices.

The same study predicted that tourist arrivals in Thailand this year would fall 0.8% year-on-year to 14.3 million. Thailand's tourism industry accounts for 5% of GDP and employs two million people directly and indirectly.

Airline managers and operators of aviation supporting facilities would rather concentrate their efforts on getting their businesses back on track and swallowing the financial costs incurred to them by the political standoff.

''There is no reason for us to take legal action (against the PAD). We don't think we can get any compensation. It is difficult to win such a lawsuit,'' said Aaron Chan, Cathay Pacific's manager for Thailand.

The airline did not even bother to count the revenue it lost during the 10-day airport shutdown, though it has shouldered about four million baht from paying hotel, food, and transport bills for its stranded passengers as well as allocating manpower to help them.

''I'm not here to chase after somebody. I have a more important thing to do _ to spend my energy on [traffic] recovery,'' said Florian Preuss, Etihad Airways manager for Thailand. ''It is for the Thais to deal with the situation.''

British Airways seems to be thinking along the same lines. Though the siege cost it around 50-60 million baht in lost revenue and other expenses in evacuating some 3,000 stranded passengers out of the capital at the time of the airport crisis, Kevin McQuillan, BA's manager for Thailand, said that suing the PAD was not on the airline's agenda.

Tassapon Bijleveld, chief executive of the no-frills carrier Thai AirAsia, was more vocal, saying, ''It is useless to talk about the the PAD and a lawsuit.''

''This is a political issue, something you cannot really make accountable and make them compensate for the losses incurred to us. It is not worth our time, legal fees and energy,'' he said.

The airport shutdown caused Thai AirAsia to miss its 2008 passenger target, set earlier at 4.5 million, by about 300,000 passengers, and revenue projection by a considerable margin.

''We're looking forward, not backward,'' Oman Air chief executive Peter Hill responded when asked whether his airline was pondering any legal action against the PAD.

''We have to deal with this sort of issues all over the world _ the tsunami, Sars, 9/11, the attack on Colombo airport that destroyed half of Sri Lanka Airlines' fleet in 2001.

''The situation in Thailand is something we call crisis management. You have to work around it, try not to get embroiled in these political issues,'' the veteran British airline executive said.

An executive for Singapore Airlines' Bangkok office said it had not received any indication from its head office to press charges against the PAD.

Thai Airports Ground Services Co (Tags) chief executive Ladya Uriya said the company had looked into the laws and concluded that it was a waste of time to take the the PAD to court, though the closure caused its revenue to drop by 30% last year. ''We would rather rebuild our business,'' he added.

Only Thai Airways International (THAI) and Airports of Thailand Plc have made known their legal intention.

THAI, which bore the brunt of the airport closure with 20 billion baht in damages, has already resolved to hold the PAD leaders accountable with a lawsuit for compensation equivalent to the disruption costs and future lost revenue.

AoT, in turn, will make the the PAD liable for its action that cost more than 50 million baht for each day of the closure.

bangkokpost.com

cant they sue the airport, for breach of contract etc.
doesent really matter why it wasnt open, just the fact it wasnt could be an approach