Gaikhao

The mainland Chinese carriers have decimated everyone on the SE Asia routes. It is unfair to single out TG when many western carriers have the same issues. United and Delta pulled back, and Air Canada avoids. Look at some of the equipment EU carriers deploy: AF is using its old depressing planes on the route.

Many of the senior positions are occupied by former military officials., so some already can get pensions. ; ]

Davvidd

Not true as I know some of them personally. The Directors maybe from the military but not most department heads.

Gaikhao

I don't believe that the concept of "department head" exists as such at the airline. You are directed to the basic organizational chart of the company: The company is set up on a divisional basis with operating units within the divisions. Each has a vice president. Therein is one of the problems: Many VPs. Everyone gets a title, a badge, a ribbon etc.
link at thaiairways.com/en/about_thai/company_profile/organization_chart.page

The operating units have sections and section managers. Perhaps these are the people you are terming department heads. Whatever the name, they carry out orders, they are followers, not initiators of change or of policy. Even the divisional VPs are subject to following corporate directive.

It is not a secret that the military and the national airline are intertwined. Multiple articles have been written about this. If one looks at the big picture, the fact is that the airline has been dominated by military thinking and closed military culture. There has been relatively little oversight or transparency because one is not permitted to criticize , and I am certainly not going to go off into that, however, the needs of a military institution are significantly different than those of a civilian entity. That's where the culture issue lies. It is not a question of right or wrong, but one of having people who are used to one type of culture being asked to run something that requires a different culture. It is much like asking a clinical research organization to manage a restaurant.
This isn't an issue exclusive of TG as it was seen at the US airlines with pilots in the 1950's to 1970's which had pilot culture problems during that period for the same reason. They dealt with it as part of their growth and development. IMO, TG, it hasn't faced the culture issue and adapted accordingly, in large part because too often the people responsible for the necessary changes and initiatives are drawn from sectors which are not incubators of innovation and organizational transparency. Having department heads or whatever one wishes to call them drawn from outside the military sector changes nothing since they have no say in the management policy of the company.

Yobodon

My understanding that EASA audits the airlines that fly into Europe in this case TG but FAA audits the regulator, CAAT. So one can not say the two audits are the same. So when CAAT passes the FAA audit, any Thai, HS registered carriers will be able to fly into the US. It is the opposite with EASA audit where you just audit the airline that wants to fly to Europe

Davvidd

The FAA audit was a political decision. It was not a professional decision as at the moment in time no Thai AOC wants to operate to USA. So there was no reason for CAAT to let FAA audit them. But that decision was done politically above their heads or views.

As for the military in Thai airways they actually as VP s or Directors do not get involved in the day to day running of the airlines. It's left to the department heads. As I said I know some of them personally and honestly some of them have been in TG for over 30 years and maybe even if they wanted they can't change the culture.

brunos

I don't understand why you say that it is a political decision.
CAAT invited the FAA to conduct an audit. They failed in 2015 and Thailand airlines were moved to category 2.
CAAT reinvited FAA in February 2019 in the hope of regaining Category 2, but failed.
Until Thailand gets the Category 1 rating, there is no pont considering starting flights to USA. Whether that would be a rational decision is another issue. But with the new ultra long range ac and their much improved consumption, it is an option that TG must certainly consider.

Thai-Kiwi

Maybe dav662 meant ‘face saving’ rather than ‘political’?

Irrespective of the business case for TG to resume US flights, improving the category would go some way to restoring the international reputation of THAI, and if those people who lost face when the company was downgraded. Just a thought...

thbe

Thailand failed to get the category 1 rating, because the CAAT was unable to meet the well-known official criteria. And they were unable to to meet the official criteria, because they use their money for other things. And they use their money for other things, because these things are more important for them. That's the whole story. And in contrast to i.e. Boing's and FAA's 737 Max disaster, that case of incompetence and corruption didn't cause hundreds of deaths.