PeterRS

I once said you have too many negative thoughts. You denied it. Now you write a post about yet more negative thoughts. I am roughly a couple of decades older than you. I can tell you that age has never concerned me in the slightest- except once. I remember was terrified of being 40. So starting at 37 I slowly became something of a mental wreck as I could not get 40 out of my mind. No idea why I did not have that feeling at either 30 or 50. Then suddenly it was my 40th birthday. All the worry disappeared almost overnight and I reckon my 40s turned out to be the best decade in my life. As someone once said, there are no certainties in life except death and taxes. So better get used to the fact that death will hit you and all of us sometime. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe next week. Or maybe well all live to 85 and more. I have had friends die in their 20s (1 had a heart attack, the other a cerebral aneurism), 30s (AIDS), 40s (heart) and 50s (cancer). Any one of them could have been me. So I am thrilled to be around and still enjoying life. I plan to continue doing that for many years more.

jfarmer017 bases his assertion very much on the terms in the Uniteds Conditions of Carriage. Not so according to legal website Dorf on Law. The reason? Those exact same terms of the airlines conditions of carriage. Inexplicably, it seems that nowhere in the COC is there a definition of “boarding”. Consequently the term must therefore be given its ordinarily accepted meaning in the active tense of “get on to the aircraft.” Dr. Dao was clearly already on the aircraft and in his seat. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.htm

Clearly you dont care making wrong statements about other guys posts and then not withdrawing them. This is from the statement by the United Airlines Pilots Association And that was my point all along. Sorry but I was not wrong (twice!)

It really does make a difference. You have twice said I am wrong. But in no way have you explained why I am wrong nor how it is that United would suddenly realise they had to eject 4 passengers AFTER all had boarded and were seated. Yes I understand about weight, especially cabin baggage on these commuter flights. But weight was not the issue in this case. Lack of available seats was. So if they needed the seats, it is impossible to believe they only had a few minutes notice. Otherwise they would have denied boarding and done it before the passengers boarded.

I appreciate your experience firecat69, but you say I am wrong. In what way am I wrong in suggesting that United must have known before all the passengers were seated that they needed four seats for crew? And why did they not stop four at the gate?

In what way am I wrong? If the airline KNEW it needed the seats, why did it fill the plane chock full of passengers and then only minutes before taking off decide it suddenly needed to get four of them off? That makes no sense at all! You say they "knew" they needed the seats. I find that quite impossible to believe. If they did know that, they would have kept 4 seats free and bumped passengers before they were able to check in. Minimum domestic check in at ORD with a checked bag is 45 minutes. Even in the unlikely event that all passengers had checked in using mobile phones, why werent four stopped at the gate? It is unbelievable that United only realised it needed 4 crew seats less than 15 - 30 minutes prior to departure?

I think most of us realise that. What I for one totally fail to realise is why United in this case decided at just minutes notice after all the passengers were seated awaiting take off that suddenly they needed 4 crew seats? Crew movements are planned much further ahead of time and its common that some seats are deliberately blocked for that very reason. Theres a lot of talk about a business model on this thread. That is no way to run a business!

A nuanced view? I find that view utterly objectionable. You still idiotically maintain the 69 year old doctor was partly to blame. That is just nuts! "He knew the risks of such behavior!" How on earth do you know that. Have you evidence that he had experience of that before? Fact is you dont. Did the gate agent when offering the compensation for volunteers tell all the passengers some would forcibly be removed if four could not be found? I have no idea but I absolutely doubt it. At the very least it seems he was not provided with the mandatory written statement of instructions and that is against the law. At least you agree the way he was so forcibly removed was "a grievous error". But it happened and you cannot divorce the two situations. Where in any airline contract does it unequivocally state a peaceful passenger who is causing no disturbance in any way, no harm, who is buckled in his seat awaiting take-off, who is not even suspected of carrying illegal substances or whatever, may be removed by such violent means that he broke his nose, two teeth, sinus issues and concussion? Ill bet you cant find it because its not there. And my understanding is that airlines cannot bump passengers who have a specific urgent reason for arriving at the destination by a certain time. A doctor caring for patients would seem to be a lot more urgent than the reasons of at last some others on that flight. As I pointed out in an earlier post and as the lawyer stated unequivocally in the media conference last night, the legal arbiter of what went on on that plane was the captain. His word was law. Period. He had the legal right to order the bullies off his plane and/or to temper their behaviour. Where was he? Nowhere but locked in his cockpit it would seem. Why did the flight attendants not warn him what was happening as I assume they can not have done? Te end result is that high powered lawyer yesterday made it totally clear that the law suit which will definitely come (a point he finally agreed) will either have to be settled with a huge out of court settlement or to go to trial with the airline and the city of Chicago as the primary defenders. He must be loving every minute of this because as again stated he knows the flying public is totally pissed off with the way they are treated by airlines. Im prepared to put a few bucks on the table that if it does get to court, the defenders will be faced with with multi million dollar awards against them. My guess is the doctor will end up with a 7 figure sum for the actions on that aircraft and aggravated damages that could stretch as far as a 9 figure amount. And all because the airline would not offer a few hundred more in cash to find a volunteer. The fault is the airlines. No question.

I cannot believe that comment. You have paid for your ticket. You have checked in. You have been given your boarding pass. You have gone through security. You have boarded the plane and you are sitting in your seat. You see a gate agent board. You hear him asking for volunteers. You have no intention of volunteering because of your job. You stay seated. You are then treated like an escaped prisoner. And you consider this passenger had part of the blame? That is ridiculous! If it was me, I would have held my ground and done precisely the same. To suggest that the doctor bore some of the blame for throwing a tantrum in such circumstances is ... sorry, but ridiculous.

Had two flights in to Moscow in 2011. Long immigration queues but no problem whatever with customs. Just walked through.

And that jfarmer017 is pure bullshit! Ive flown Chicago to Louisville at least a couple of dozen times, sometimes on the earliest flight and sometimes on the last. If it is 10pm on a Sunday and you have appointments at 9am the next morning, do you seriously believe any passenger on that flight would agree to leave voluntarily, get off the plane, wait for his bag to get off (on these small planes carry on is kept at the back), get back to the terminal, hope you can find a car hire company that is open and has an available car for a one-way hire (how much does that cost at the last minute?), then drive through the night to get to Louisville at dawn and still be fully capable of carrying out your work that day? Come one! Remember that louisville is one hour ahead of Chicago. What if he had been a surgeon? Would you be happy to go under the knife knowing your surgeon had had no sleep the night before? Even if the airline offered to drive me in a chauffeured limousine Id have turned it down. The only reason 4 passengers were asked to leave was because the airline decided at the last minute it needed to get 4 flight attendants to Louisville. It must have been very last minute or it would have bumped the passengers at check in and probably been perfectly within its rights to do so. Airlines routinely have to fly crew to other ports. However such crew movements are always planned well ahead and seats held back for them. If passengers could be expected to drive through the night, why not those flight attendants? I know this was not technically United but it carried Uniteds brand name. And it was not United that ejected the passenger in such a criminal way. (I really wonder where the captain was as all this was happening. It was his flight and on board his word is law.) But it is United that is now in disastrous PR shit and no doubt facing a multi million dollar law suit to boot. And it could all have been solved without any fuss with just a few hundred extra dollars being offered.

From reading other posts on some of the forums, its clear that Taipei may not be to everyones taste and expectations. But some posters really seem to like it a lot and find plenty of sex there. I dont read Chinese but when in China I find a decent map and a little time just looking at the characters means I can usually locate a building as long as I am in the right area. If in the wrong area then I am totally screwed LOL I find it strange that because you assumed there was a lot of barebacking going on in Kuala Lumpur where gay sex is illegal you just assumed that this is also true in Taipei where there isn such law. You may be right but surely you should have checked before making the assumption? Obviously it was a pity that you could not access the smartphone apps. Im actually surprised anyone travels without them nowadays. Again reading from the other reports, these seem to be particularly active in Taiwan and it would be nice to have had more confirmation. I wonder if you also tried the male only hot springs?

Holy brother Abidismaili on the march

How can your life be wrecked by not having a naked massage with a 17 year old clothed youth? I dont like the sound of that.

Agree with traveller123 on both recommendations. Vertigo at the Banyan Tree is definitely expensive but worth it for the view. Your only problem is the time of year. If it starts to rain just after your drinks have arrived you have to move down a floor. Have also eaten several times at Table de Tee. The cuisine is French nouvel cuisine type fusion with some Thai flavourings. Last time I was there the cost was around 1,350 Baht per head plus service. Its a fixed price menu with 5 courses. Three courses have a choice of two dishes. The other two have no choice. Chef Tee trained at a top restaurant in London. Its in a little dead end sub soi about half way along Saladaeng. http://www.latabledetee.com With a similar fusion theme, even better is Le Du very close to Chongnonsi BTS station. The two Thai chefs here trained in New York and then worked in top US restaurants. Its more expensive than Tabble de Tee but the quality is higher. The flavours in each dish just explode in your mouth. There is a tasting menu but be careful for some of the dishes require an extra supplement. http://www.ledubkk.com

You think life is fair? You think we live in a free society? Waken up! All societies have rules. They form the backbone of all societies and communities. If you dont like those rules, break them and then you take the consequences. But dont keep moaning on about them.

Seems to me that Thailand Elite is doing its best to rip off UK pensioners in a big way. I reckon the only reason anyone would think of paying $60,000 plus $600 a year is if they dont know about the annual retirement visa procedure. After all the perks are extremely limited. I bet Thailand Elite is doing its best to ensure that state of ignorance is maintained!

Thanks for the line up photo Travellerdave. I think its great that someone has had the courage not just to open a bar there but to keep prices at a level which definitely should encourage more customers. I hope everyone visiting Pattaya will make sure to visit and show their support.

I have several friends who have married their Thai partners. The marriages took place in London and one couple lives there. Even with a 25 year age difference, they have never noticed any homophobia, strange looks etc. either in the west or on their regular trips back to Thailand. Another couple also has a big age difference and have lived together in Bangkok and once in Chiang Mai for 15 years. I have spent quite a bit of time with them. Again Ive never seen any signs of homophobia, open or repressed.

For years its been common to have the belt but no buckles on the back seats. That is definitely changing fast. In the last few days I have been amazed. All but one of the taxis I have taken has had working seat belts in the back.

You surely cannot believe that therefore all retirees wait till official retirement age. Talking with a good friend today between us we know of 5 living here in Bangkok and 1 in Jomtien who all retired in their early 50s. My friend and I retired in our late 50s. So its totally incorrect to make assumptions that because the majority wait till mid 60s, therefore everyone does.

There you go again. So often you take your own beliefs based on your own very limited experience and morph them into a generalisation that is often simply not true! A lot of people I know retired long before 65. They saved and invested well precisely to do that. And how is it you know - because you always seem to know - that the farang you see in the bars are guys who retired here? Theyre more likely tourists. The retirees are more likely to be out dining in nice restaurants and having a great time with friends and boyfriends. But then thats just not how you think. Loosen up!

No I certainly dont understand! Yet again you show your negative thoughts and feelings. Being a pensioner in no way implies being close to death. Not at all. I know of people in Thailand who retired on a pension at age 50. He probably has 35 plus years to live! Another who still works and enjoys a full social life and a lot of travel in his 60s. Your only actual fact is that those who retire tend to be closer to death than you are - in terms purely of years. Im sure the medical profession has studies to prove that those with a positive outlook on life and who enjoy their lives live far longer and far more actively than those who always view life with their minds filled with negative thoughts.

What a foul and disgraceful statement - and so totally untrue in so many cases. If you are so happy, why is it that you always sound as though you had just taken a dose of arsenic?

Why this obsession with elderly men? It becomes crashingly boring! Like many posters I am no longer young and considerably older than the early 40s you say you are. Like many of my age, I have no problem with sex in the afternoon and again in the evening - and probably the morning as well. For years I used to visit Albury before it made its ill fated move to Suk 26. I always had the same cute masseur, got a great massage and always ended up with a f--k session. Always! Same at Aqua off Sathorn Soi 9. Both sadly closed now.