Thai Airways Tries To Cover Logo On Crashed Plane, Gets Egg On Face Instead

from the the-cover-up-is-always-worse-than-the-crime dept

Wed, Sep 11th 2013 2:57pm — Timothy Geigner

There's a saying that goes: the coverup is always worse than the crime. It's a sort of catchall phrase that can be applied to the Streisand Effect for the way in which a group's inability to assume proper responsibility vaults their transgression into the limelight in a way it otherwise would not have, while simultaneously causing them to look petty, callous, or devious. The point is, as most of us adults have learned, that when you're caught doing something wrong your best bet is to readily accept the blame and begin working on rebuilding your brand. If you don't, you look like a jerk.

Speaking of which, Thai Airways is suddenly looking like a jerk. The airline seems to have a problem keeping the landing gear working on its planes as of late. After a crash in Hong Kong two weeks ago, another Thai Airways Airbus plane suffered faulty landing gear and injured 14 people when it skidded onto a Bangkok runway. Then, because apparently the company is run by junior high school children, they sent a crew out to the plane to hastily paint over the company logo on the tail-section, even as the rest of the plane was garbed in easy-to-identify company colors.

Today, the plane was seen resting on grass next to the runway with its evacuation slides still deployed and the Thai Airways name and logo hastily covered up.

The move to black-out the logo may have been a response to last night's incident coming less than two weeks after 20 passengers were injured when a Thai Airways flight hit severe turbulence as it was descending to Hong Kong's airport. Although the logo was unable to be seen, the plane's airline colours were unmistakable and easily compared to Thai Airways jets taking off or landing in the vicinity, which happens quite a bit in Bangkok.

If this all seems eerily familiar, it's because you used to pull this exact same move... when you were five years old. You know what I'm talking about: you're wrist deep in the chocolate cake mom cooked for your sister, she catches you in the act, and you put your hands over your eyes. Ah ha, problem solved! If you can't see her, she obviously can't see you!

Except it doesn't work like that of course and now the news is filled with reports of Thai Airways trying to shirk their responsibility for yet another crash with the kind of move Sesame Street teaches you not to pull. Enjoy that Streisanding, folks! Think about how many more people now know not to fly your planes!

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: coverup, plane crash, streisand effect, thai airways, trademark
Companies: thai airways

29 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:13pm

Absolute best part...
Has got to be the un'blanked' airplane with the exact same paint-job in the background, as though whatever bonehead ordered the hasty paint-job forgot that all of their planes have the same paint-style, making the logo pretty redundant when it comes to identification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:17pm

I saw this and laughed so hard I broke another plane.
I wonder who was so stupid to think this was a good idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:18pm

Obviously....Tim is wrong (sorry...I like Tims writing).

Obviously the airline is avoiding frivolous lawsuits. People will get off the plane and try to sue...but the lack of ownership will prevent proper documents.

Problem solved. But..they should have used TP. Easier to explain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Brown (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:26pm

Re:
I'm pretty sure all those passengers already knew what airline they were flying, and have their boarding passes to prove it. No worries though, they'll get compensation for their inconvenience in the form of free tickets.

Since this is evidently their standard operating procedure, you'd think they would keep giant tarps on hand to throw over the wreckage of their planes. That way they can literally cover up accidents, without damaging the paint job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Namel3ss (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:30pm

That blacking out..
Looks like someone took the pic and used the fat brush in MS Paint to do the blacking out.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:35pm

These aren't the planes you're looking for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Highwire, 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:46pm

Air Canada has done this too
Air Canada does this too. They claim it's a standard international convention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:47pm

Screw Popcorn
Need to start investing in Sharpies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dfgdfg, 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:53pm

This is common practice throughout the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aster, 11 Sep 2013 @ 4:02pm

Surely they could have painted over with purple and white in respective areas thus not making it look like a hatchet job.

"And don't call me Shirley"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
athe, 11 Sep 2013 @ 4:03pm

Even better...
Is the Thai Airways plane taking off in the background.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2013 @ 4:40pm

we all do it....when selling a car, we buy touch up paint to cover the scratches....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 5:38pm

Re:
Got other examples?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Linsay, 11 Sep 2013 @ 10:18pm

It's an NSA aircraft, it's been redacted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Manok, 12 Sep 2013 @ 12:35am

I don't understand the fuzz... This is common practice, and happens all the time.

Instead of having a big (negative) ad sign right next to the runway for a few weeks, where 100% of the people could see the airline's name, and which would be imprinted on their memories; now only 10% recognizes it, and another 10% is curious enough to find out.

Big difference... it seems like a smart thing to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Sep 2013 @ 12:53am

Re:
Different scenario. This would be like painting over your registration plate so that you can pretend to the other guy's insurance company that you weren't involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Sep 2013 @ 1:15am

Re:
I keep seeing this claim, but nobody's bothered to cite it - do you have such a link?

"Big difference... it seems like a smart thing to do."

I disagree. The other branding on the aircraft is clearly visible. If this is common practice, it would do nothing to stop me from noticing, although I admit I'm a frequent flyer. But, most airlines spend a lot of money making sure their branding is visible and recognisable across the whole plane, not just the tail. Hiding and hoping that people won't remember the crashed plane is not a great way of doing things, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2013 @ 1:37am

Re: Re:
I think he was making a percentage argument. Only few people in the airport will care enough to find out what company has caused the wreckage they can see in the airport. If the plane cannot be escorted to a hangar, it makes sense to sign in blood and hide in shame for the weeks where the wreckage is still out in the open.

That they can get more press time is another story, which makes questioning the effectiveness very valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JJ Joseph, 12 Sep 2013 @ 2:44am

Logo coverup
Don't get too excited. Airlines have always done this. It's nothing new or scandalous, it's just the way that wrecks are processed. Once the wreck starts being transferred from one party to another (almost immediately), the logo is gone. The actual wreckage could hang around the airport for years. Eventually the wreckage is no longer controlled by Thai Airways, so the logo is gone.

The reason the the media is getting so excited is that plane crashes used to be a regular event, so nobody paid any attention to the logos being painted over. Nowadays, plane crashes are extremely rare, so painting over the logo has become a spectacular non-event.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Sep 2013 @ 3:21am

Re: Re: Re:
"Only few people in the airport will care enough to find out what company has caused the wreckage they can see in the airport."

But that's my point. I can recognise a plane without seeing the tail fin, and those companies have spent millions branding their planes to do just that - be recognisable at a distance even if part of the plane is obscured. At least one airline I'm familiar with (Easyjet) has spent a lot of money trying to protect a single colour (orange) for this express reason.

As noted in the article, anyone familiar with the Thai Airways branding design will know it's a Thai plane even with the logos blacked out, and those who aren't so familiar can see similar enough planes in operation to put 2 and 2 together.

I simply can't see how this would make any difference to any remotely interested traveller, unless they fly so infrequently that they don't care (and thus aren't exactly their target customer to begin with) or don't care at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2013 @ 4:57am

Re: Re:
Here's another example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751

http://aviation-safety.ne t/photos/accidents/19911227-0-C-d-1-500.jpg
Post crash re-paint:
http://www.flygvardinnan.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/1296-20070930230939.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2013 @ 6:02am

Re: Logo coverup
I don't recall any US airline ever doing this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 12 Sep 2013 @ 6:19am

I had this explained to me once...
An Air Canada employee explained this to me once. Apparently, as soon as a plane crashes, it becomes property of the company that insured it.

Hence, it's no longer an Air Canada plane, and so the logo is removed as efficiently as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 12 Sep 2013 @ 6:42am

Re: I had this explained to me once...
That *almost* makes sense, at least as far as it makes more sense than scrambling to pretend that a specific airline didn't cause the crash. But, it still seems rather wasteful, and (AFAIK) unique in that case.

I mean, you don't see people scrambling to remove Ford branding if a Focus is trashed at the side of the road, or teams sent to remove company branding from a truck that's careened off the side of the road despite being written off. You might argue cleanup time is different, but the plane is still the insurance company's property whether or not it still has the previous owner's logos while that happens. Curious.

I can't think of any other situation where removing a previous owner's branding happens before the mess is cleared up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 12 Sep 2013 @ 10:43am

If this all seems eerily familiar, it's because you used to pull this exact same move... when you were five years old. You know what I'm talking about: you're wrist deep in the chocolate cake mom cooked for your sister, she catches you in the act, and you put your hands over your eyes. Ah ha, problem solved! If you can't see her, she obviously can't see you!

Your mom was the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Tral? That explains so much! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2013 @ 9:00am

Coverup?
There's many examples. Try Southwest Airlines flight 1248:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Southwest-Airlines-Flight-1248/138178932876160
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pedro, 14 Sep 2013 @ 4:20am

Crash in Hong Kong
What crash in Hong Kong? Did you mean INCIDENT in Hong Kong? A crash has well defined parameters by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Please don't be write in tabloid style. Otherwise, good article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2013 @ 11:49am

omg!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re-Born, 20 Oct 2013 @ 11:53pm

is it common?
is it common to do this. or it is technical thing to do to avoild some laws stuff?

http://re-bornmask.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]