womble

So why are taxpayers subsidising this when AOT just posted record profits???

Not only are travelers being ripped off, but every Thai tax payer is also getting a raw deal.

It gets worse and worse.

Greed knows know bounds with this new airport!

USERS are paying it ... 17% according to the 1998 article are Thai ...

Yes they posted a profit the profit did not come from PSC's as PSC's are not at a level to support the cost per passenger

Ok.......

So let expand on that.......

Do you have data to show the level of government subsidy for passenger use of the terminal.

If the government is subsidising, why are they doing so when AOT has funds themselves from other services paid for by passengers.

It actually sounds like the tax payer and the passenger is paying more so AOT can increase profits, the passenger more than pays for use when you factor in what AOT gets in rents from restaurants, shops, offices there to cater for the passengers.

"it is a tempest in a teacup."

I'm trying to have a healthy discussion here, I want to understand why it is higher than elsewhere, nothing wrong with that, I like to know where my hard earnt cash is going. When I am overcharged I don't like it, where as when I recieve good service and fair value I am happy. There is nothing wrong with understanding why things are certain prices, what costs are to the provider of a service and their profits.

It's called economics.

You will rarely see two economists agree on everything, healthy discussion and a sharing of information though can help them come to sensible and plausible conclusions.

no ... but feel free to bait me some more ... or not read it as written Then again I am not whingeing about leaving I do NOT think the fee is excessive. Said it over and over. Many folks agree. So you don't Then don't pay it

So you don't think it's expensive, but all facts and figures prove that it is.

Are you an elite card member?

Simply because it is NOT that expensive .... and again comparing countries thatcan afford to further supplement the PSA/departure tax to countries that cannot is spuriuos

Is that an admission that it is actually expensive (well not that expensive )

So why are taxpayers subsidising this when AOT just posted record profits???

Not only are travelers being ripped off, but every Thai tax payer is also getting a raw deal.

It gets worse and worse.

Greed knows know bounds with this new airport!

Thanks jd, he's not going with me this time, but we are both planning on going next year.

Anyway, a 200 baht increase all at once does add expense, most certainly, but out of curiousity sake, when was the last time they raised the departure tax? Was it pre-economic downturn? If so, then really, it is actually cheaper than before because back then it was 25 baht to one dollar so a 500 baht departure tax would have been $20, now, even at 700 baht it isnt quite $20.

And then again, when you factor in things like inflation, is it really such a huge jump?

Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me

I completely agree sbk

And many economists would disagree with you JD. There's lots of figures there to show that the departure tax is expensive in relation to all other airports in the region. Do you have any evidence of the levels of subsidisation other airports in Asia are recieving from central government? Are you trying to tell me that all other airports in Asia are loss making? You know how stupid that sounds right? If not then i'm afraid your word is not good enough, this is the real world, and opinion isn't enough, cold hard facts and figures are what we need to make sensible unbias decisions.

If a company needs to make a decision and they consult two economists for their opinion, if they simply said that something is a certain way just because it is do you think they would be impressed, don't you think they may ask what it is that made him come to that decision?

You have offered nothing other than your opinion with no backing from sources or any figures to prove your Therom. I doubt many economists would be impressed and take your word for it that it's cheap, a Therom is nothing without evidence..

And using Cambodia as an example which is always near the bottom of the list on the world corruption index, is not going to help back up your argument. Corruption on the new airport is huge, millions of $ are being syphoned off where ever possible, it's highly unlikely some of this money in camboda isn't going to corruption, so I guess we can assume Cambodia is just as bad, if not worse than Thailand.

Are you one of these types that would argue black is white?

Simply because it is NOT that expensive .... and again comparing countries thatcan afford to further supplement the PSA/departure tax to countries that cannot is spuriuos

Burma - $10 - 375bt

Yeppers .... it is still cheap and since this is NOT about the new airport but ALL international departures from Thailand.

Cheaper than say --- Cambodia (and I think Laos and Burma

1000 makes good sense to me

It is about the new airport as nearly all international flights leave from that airport, all the other airports combined only add up to a handful of the flights that leave the kingdon. Besides they are using the new airport as an excuse to raise the price.

If your happy to pay as a percentage what Is as very expensive compared to it's competitors, are you also prepared to pay this much extra for all your goods and services so that the business can make a larger profit?

Why not pay extra on your electric bills, petrol, plane tickets, infact why don't you work out the average percentage difference is with all comoeting airports, then apply that percentage rise to every good and service you buy in Thailand, maybe then you'll realise that sometimes it's ok for businesses to make profits, but sometimes perhaps those payments are unreasonably high.

Maybe you have some good reasons you could explain to me why it needs to be so high when it seems the costs involved with operation are much lower than places such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Or do you still want to insist that you think it's cheap compared to other similar services in the region.

It is cheap ..... and cheaper than the poorer neighbors. Comparing Thailand to Japan or Singapore is comparing apples to oranges Comparing what you have previously described as a thirdworld country/developing nation to a first world/developed country that can more afford to supplement the PSC is a spurious argument. I suggest you go back and reread what Samran has written.

ps ... there are lots of flights out of Phuket and Chiang Mai to other countries not just a handful <no they are not one of the biggest 50 in the world ... but still more than a handful

>

and come to think of it ... in BKK I did pay extra for water and electric

The reason the poorer neighbours are expensive compared to the busier airports is down to economies of scale, with far fewer passengers the price per head has to be higher as cost average per person is higher, I thought that was obvious?

And I havn't just compared it to to Japan or Singapore. i've compared it to every major airport in asia, oh sorry I forgot Shanghai (424 baht) and korea (392).

I disagree with your observation that they are like oranges and apples. I would compare it to something like very similar cars from different manufacturers. They are two peas from the same pod, Say a BMW and a Merc, or an audi and volvo. First you looks at the costs, if the Merc is more reliable (delayed buses, easy ground transport connections) and the servicing costs (departure tax)are cheaper it looks more attractive and so you will likley choose that over the BMW.

It's unlikely that you would buy a BMW and a Merc as you can't drive both at the same time similar to when you went shopping for apples you would more than likely get one type of apple and some other fruit that is actually nothing like an apple at all, an orange is citrus which the apple is not.

JD, why don't you just admit that it's expensive?

the "average thai" won't be getting on a plane to fly internationally ......

Actually there are now very cheap international flights available, thus this hike will affect also "average thais". For example Bangkok-Singapore (without departure tax) is available for 1499B with AirAsia. Adding 700B departure tax on top of this will increase the overall price dramatically.

This will probably affect Thailand's tourism as well. Middle class people from the neighbouring countries will think twice before coming to Bangkok...

Absolutley!

It's the Thai people themselves that are getting the worse deal, large numbers of Thais travel with the cheaper airlines to destinations around asia, to those with less spending power and traveling regionally it's an added cost that is most certainly not welcome, especially when they are being given nothing in return. For a Thai family of four with the father paying it's the difference between 2000 baht and now 2800. Quite a big difference!

Yeppers .... it is still cheap and since this is NOT about the new airport but ALL international departures from Thailand.

Cheaper than say --- Cambodia (and I think Laos and Burma

1000 makes good sense to me

It is about the new airport as nearly all international flights leave from that airport, all the other airports combined only add up to a handful of the flights that leave the kingdon. Besides they are using the new airport as an excuse to raise the price.

If your happy to pay as a percentage what Is as very expensive compared to it's competitors, are you also prepared to pay this much extra for all your goods and services so that the business can make a larger profit?

Why not pay extra on your electric bills, petrol, plane tickets, infact why don't you work out the average percentage difference is with all comoeting airports, then apply that percentage rise to every good and service you buy in Thailand, maybe then you'll realise that sometimes it's ok for businesses to make profits, but sometimes perhaps those payments are unreasonably high.

Maybe you have some good reasons you could explain to me why it needs to be so high when it seems the costs involved with operation are much lower than places such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Or do you still want to insist that you think it's cheap compared to other similar services in the region.

Call on people not to pay taxes does not soung perfectly legal. Has the actual call been made, or the idea was simply floated, as Rosana claims?

Judicial review of PAD demonstrations is welcome - all the more reasons to see who is "right".

Calling on people not to pay taxes is a bit dodgy, but maybe they could justify it by saying so much of the taxes is being lost to corruption that they don't want to pay it until they are satisfied a government is honest with the money. They could also use thaksins sale of shin as an example and say they wouldn't pay until tax was paid on that.

yeah it's a raise of 40% which is huge.

But when you compare it to the departure taxes of it's competitors it's expensive, very expensive.

HK is $HK120 - 579 baht

Singapore is S$21 - 501 baht

KL is 40 Ringit - 400 baht

Taipei 300 ntd$ - NT$342 baht

Tokyo 2040 yen - 654 baht

Thailand 700 baht

Costs for labour and land are significantly lower in bangkok, infact Tokyo which is the most expensive competitor has very high labour and extremely high land and construction costs, it's one of the most expensive sities in the world, yet cheaper than bangkok.

Anyone still think it's cheap?

I'd say it's one of the most expensive airports in Asia. If not the most expensive. It's more expensive than tokyo!!!

Any comments?

I think that is enough evidence to prove it is expensive, very expensive.

Nuff Said!

interesting, I havn't heard of a single land sale in samui in the last four weeks eigher, does anyone know of any land transactions involving foriegn owned companys in the last month anywhere in Thailand?

interesting point but, should he be allowed to provide army security to PAD, I thought the army was for protecting the country not individuals.

If PAD want security surely they should hire a private security firm if police wont do it (which they should but obviously wont).

Actually this is very interesting.....

should it later be proved that the bomb was set up by the governement and they sent official letters to foriegn governments claiming it was someone else this could be very serious.

I would imagine this would be a crime against the country.

does anyone know?

Can you believe that Caretaker Government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee is now claiming there have been three other attempts on the premiers life, including the accident involving Thaksins motorcade.

They're really milking this one!!!!!

I don't think anyone is gonna believe that.

I didn't do the Maths, but that bangkok post so what do you expect.

yeah people won't change their plans for a few $, but the fact remains that if ticket prices go up too due to other price rises, then people may well stop coming.

I havn't been to KL for a while, but I have been to singapore and hong kong and those airports are extremely busy and also extremely well run and cheaper than the new airport will be.

and thats precisely my point, so often in Thailand prices are raised for no reason other than because they can. Not because the funds are being used for bringing in improvements. It's not that I think the extra 200 baht will have any difference on arrivals, it won't, but the attitude which is applied to many aspects of this airport combined may well do.

I think many of you are completley missing the point, it's not about the 200 baht increase, that is only a small but still relavant part of the increased costs to the consumer with no benefits that I can see other than a shiny new building.

Big deal!

The duty free will still be run by the same company that charges extortionate prices. There are so many things here that are not good news for the consumer.

Please can someone who disagrees compile a comprehensive list of positives to the consumers that out wiegh that negatives and increased costs.

It seems a lot of you cannot see where this is going, 200 baht is not much, but with other costs to the airlines which makes non sense eigher, that means ticket prices will have to rise. In all likley hood many airlines will switch to other destinations and stop promoting thailand as a destination as it's simply not economically viable to them.

It could have massive implications to the success of the airport and it seems those incharge are eigher blind or because they have skimmed off so much $ and will continue to be able to skim more they will not change it for the benefit of consumers and the country as a whole.

"They'll keep raising it until folks have a problem with 'the money and NOT just the principle of it'."

Yes and as so often is the case in Thailand they may well end up 'killing the Golden Goose'. And it's no laughing matter, particualry if you are employed in the airport or the tourist industry, less tourists means less jobs, which will have an effect on the whole economy. Whilst at the same time those at the top will still be skimming off millions every year at the expense of the common man.

Any cost increases to airlines will be passed onto the passenger, any additional costs paid by the passenger themselves added to that could amke the trip seem too expensive when compared to similar destinations.

You need to look at the full picture not just the 200 baht.

It's not the amount, it's the principle. At what level does a raise become unacceptable, we have to draw limits somewhere.

And the principal is user pays. The 700baht you pay (as I already have mentioned) doesn't even cover the costs of the services that are ultimately provided to an average passenger.

At what point does the raise become unacceptable? When in the case of a monopoly asset such as an airport, that point is reached when the PSC is simply a form of price gouging. We are far from that point.

As I have said before, the PSC is being held artifically low, effectively subsidised by the Thai taxpayer (ie people who will never fly, can probably least afford to pay it).

There is a robust and transparent pricing model out there. But to apply it would have raised even louder howls of 'Thailand is ripping us off' from certain members of this board.

erm.........

Do you have any stats to back up your argument?

If it doesn't cover the costs, how much are tax payers paying?

If tax payers are paying for this, why are they not paying the overtime for immigration officers?

Yes an airport is a monopoly asset, but it's demand is not inelastic, when prices become overal too high, people will go elsewhere. This airport is in huge danger of loosing out to HK, KL and Singapore. I'm not just talking about the 700 baht here, i'm talking about costs for everything from landing fees to higher taxi fares and inconvenience from lousey transport options.

Show us you pricing model then, hot air is of no interest to me or others on this forum that prefer arguments backed up by sources and statistics.

I'm looking forward to next month, we've got so many potential red cards for Thaksin, I really don't think he can survive without using force.

Interesting times ahead.

More news regarding the 'confession' VCD, from this morning's TV-News, here.

When the press commented that the sound-quality on those parts of the recording, where the driver 'confesses', was bad & unclear, the police response was that this was due to some of the reporters standing on the power-cable to their equipment.

I never knew electric-cables were so like water-hoses, before now.

The news also pointed-out how heavily-edited the VCD-recording appeared to be. No doubt this was also due to the press, or farangs, or anybody but themselves !

The full version can be seen on the nation website, the quality of picture and sound is terrible, I can't believe they released it, it looks extremely suspicious to say the least.

This case is getting more bizzare by the minute, why would they release a VCD so heavily edited and such bad quality, it makes no sense.

As for stepping on the cable, does this fool now anything about electrical equipment?

Why oh why can people never be held accountable for anything in Thailand no matter now ridiculous the things they say are??????????

If he said there were aliens in the room and their presence distorted the picture, could he be held accountable for that???

I doubt it.

I for one am gettiing extremely fed up with the way tourists are being treated here. So much so that i'm considering leaving this country. We are treated as if we are fools and all they want is to take our money with no upgrades in service or thoughts for our welfare.

the taxi situation and lack of public transport at the airport is a prime example. Also the national park fee increase when they provide us with nothing, not even signs in English.

Is anyone else getting fed up with the way we are continually being taxed without being given anything back.

I really feel strongly about this as I think it shows a complete lack of respect and also it shows that they must think we lack intelligence.

I'm pretty close to taking my money elsewhere where it is appreciated and I will at least have some rights and be treated fairly.

Anyone else feeling the same?

I also feel that from an investment point of view Thailand has had it's day, there are now better places to conduct business where rules protect us and returns are better. There are many places now looking more attractive than Thailand IMHO.

WOW!!! you must be a real tight-a ss Womble!!

700 bht is hardly much at all (AUD $25 to be exact!).. you probably earn twice that amount in 1 hour!!!

Everything is cheap as chips in thailand, so i really dont understand what you are complaining about!!

And regards to not "even being provided with English signs", then why dont you go to a country is English speaking then??

There would be not fun in being a tourist if everything was posted in English!! Gee, next you'll be complaining that thai's dont speak english!!

That a chill pill and enjoy being in a foreign country with thier own rules.. their own taxes and thier own signs!

It's not the amount, it's the principle. At what level does a raise become unacceptable, we have to draw limits somewhere. For me it's more about the attitude that so often here prices are raised often significantly (although in this case admittedly it's not that high) where at the same time we are getting nothing extra for the increase payments, actually often standards seem to go south.

Just because we are in a foriegn country it does not mean certain signs cannot be in english, thats a ridicualous attitude to take with a country expecting 15m visitors next year. An example I would like to make is the national park increase (still coming although delayed), this is a raise of several 100%. All this does is give you entrance, no english speaking guide on hand, signs not in english even when tourists are expected to pay significantly more than locals, with no facilities for them. Most don't even have western toilets and they expect thousands of westerners to go!

Theres a great example that shows this attitude so many Thai business and organisations seem to take. It relates to landing fees and to overtime pay for immigration officers. Can you believe they expect the airlines to pay for the overtime!!!

A cost comparison report marked ''Confidential'' and obtained by this writer clearly shows Bangkok is more expensive for an airline to operate a flight, than through arch rival airports in Southeast Asia. Contrary to Thai transport authorities' claims, the report revealed that the overall charges incurred to a flight at Bangkok were higher than the normal rates applied at Singapore's Changi Airport and Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). The gap was even wider when the discounts currently rendered by the latter two competing airports are taken into account. It showed that the so-called airport turnaround costs, including landing/parking, navigation, immigration and custom overtime, baggage and security charges, at Bangkok International Airport and soon Suvarnabhumi Airport, are 57,315 baht for a A300-600 jet.

That compares with 57,130 baht at Changi before a 15% discount (applicable to 2008) which brings down the cost to 51,532 baht. The costs are marked lower at KLIA, at 23,904 baht for normal rates and 14,549 baht during the current ''promotion'' period.

For a B747-400 jumbo jet, Bangkok's rate is 105,867 baht, slightly over 105,768 baht, the discounted rate at Changi. KLIA is much cheaper at 54,643 baht for the same type of aircraft and as little as 24,627 baht in the promotional period.

The overall cost at Bangkok will inflate to 61,075 baht for A300-600 and 113,892 baht for B747-400 in April next year, when the 15% rise in landing and parking fee, which was delayed by six months, comes into effect. The charge comparison underlines the fact that Bangkok may be losing its edge against Changi and KLIA in terms of costs to attract airlines, which are trying to cut costs in every possible way to stay aloft.

While fuel accounts for roughly one-third of total airline operating costs, the airport turnaround cost constitutes as much as 10% of the total.

An airline will operate at an airport only if it is commercially viable and this will be determined partly by the cost effectiveness of such an airport. A competitive airport charge structure is crucial to maintaining Bangkok as a major air hub in Southeast Asia.

The importance of competitive charges will also determine the success of Suvarnabhumi, due to open on Sept 28, and its ability to meet financial commitments incurred from the 125-billion-baht development costs.

Thailand should not rest on its laurels as a major tourism destination in this region by making its gateway more expensive for carriers to fly in tourists. Airlines play a key role in promoting in-bound tourism and many other countries are prepared to go to any lengths to encourage carriers to make their countries a port of call by reducing or even waiving airport charges as part of the tourism promotion strategy.

With the expected arrival of 13.8 million foreign visitors this year, in-bound tourism should contribute 547.5 billion baht to the Thai economy.

The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) hopes to increase foreign arrivals to 15 million next year, generating revenues of 547.5 billion baht for the country.

Part of the problem with Thailand's high overall airport costs is that certain charges, such as overtime payment for immigration officials at the airport, are collected from airlines, a practice not seen anywhere else in the world. Aviation experts say that immigration, like security, is a state responsibility and such costs should be borne by the government.

In particular, all the government agencies, including Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT) and TAT, should put their heads together to work out a transparent and competitive structure, rather than just minding their separate interests. Perhaps Thai authorities should study Changi or KLIA, whose airport authorities have control over all airport charges.

Meanwhile, AoT should also look more keenly at ways to improve productivity, to lower operating costs; for instance, by boosting revenue through commercial sources, such as airport shops. Some of the successful airports in this region earn as much as 60% of their revenue from commercial sources.

Finally, it is advisable that AoT undertake meaningful and effective consultations with airlines to work out a long-term charges structure that will make Bangkok cost efficient, and provide financial certainty for both airlines and the airport.

Boonsong Kositchotethana is Deputy Assignment Editor (Business), Bangkok Post.

This doesn't really affect me as with another poster, I always have someone picking me up in a car, but nevertheless, I am amazed at the paranoia exhibited with people thinking Thais are out to scam them simply because the are Foreigners.

In the example given with the family of 4 arriving in Thailand after 24 hours flight and the headache of having to get a short transfer bus to catch a taxi, I note the poster did not mention the hassles at the other end of either getting a shuttle for a rental car (at virtually every US airport) or the shuttles to your own car (SFO is prime example of this).

Does anyone remember the first 5 years or so at KLIA where you couldn’t get a regular taxi at all at the airport and were forced to get a limo at about 50% more.

Airports today are required to pay their own way, and just like with airlines, convenient service is the first to go. I would imagine that the limo services pay for the booth space and this was part of an exclusive deal to insure they get the customers. This is not a Thai scam, this is capitalism. Sorry

TH

1. It's understandable that long time parking cannot be located right next to terminal in big airports. But we are talking about taxis here.

2. The limos will cost at least 100-200% more, not 50% more like in KLIA.

3. Limos don't have much to do with convenience. They won't be much different than ordinary taxis. Take a guess where extra money will go:

a) To the limo driver

To finance more luxurious limos

c) To AoT management pockets

4. Monopolies are bad for the economy in the long run. They have nothing to do with capitalism.

Novotel Suvarnabhumi Airport Hotel is only a five minute walk from Bangkok's new international airport (opening early December 2006), via a 300 metre underground walkway.

A 5-minute walk with the bagage trolley and then a taxi from the Novotel !

Thanks for that!

nah, he's on a non immigrant, student visa. Still has to do border runs every 90 days tho.

Thank god I don't have to do border runs, that would drive me mad!

The person arrested in the car and the person in the police station both look very very similar. The eyebrows arch in the same way, the jaw looks similar and the hair looks the same at the back front and sideburns.

However there is definatley no mole on the guy who was arrested in that car. And it appears that whoever is now in custody has suddenly grown a mole.

&lt;deleted&gt;???????

I can't get my head round it, but these pictures are not lying. It's plain to see, guy in car has no mole, guy in police station has a big hairy one!!!

...

Is anyone else getting fed up with the way we are continually being taxed without being given anything back...

YES! That’s exactly why I left the UK in April 05!

I'm pretty close to taking my money elsewhere where it is appreciated and I will at least have some rights and be treated fairly.

Anyone else feeling the same?

I also feel that from an investment point of view Thailand has had its day, there are now better places to conduct business where rules protect us and returns are better. There are many places now looking more attractive than Thailand IMHO.

I’ve been coming to Thailand since 1978 as a tourist. I always loved it here: Land of Smiles and all that. Bought a condo in Hua Hin ten years ago, no regrets at all. As a holiday destination, I still believe Thailand has a lot going for it: fun; cheap; friendly people. So one gets ripped off sometimes; it’s the same everywhere, and you’re on holiday, so, so what?

BUT then I took the plunge and moved here, planning to stay for at least five years. I discovered a huge difference between being on holiday spending my days messing about, and living here, trying to make things happen.

I commissioned a house in Phuket: what a total nightmare. Nobody cares about anything or can do anything right. We’re already two years late. Last year I gave up, donned my overalls, and am doing a lot of it myself. (I grew up on building sites so, perhaps unfortunately, know when things are not correct). What strikes me most is the fact that no one cares about anything, except for collecting the money, whether the job is done properly, or even at all. Everything is a drama and a fight.

I’ve bought a lot of cash here (well, a lot for me), but do indeed get little back. Bloody SCB bank won’t even trust me enough to issue a credit card with a Baht 60,000 limit, to make paying small bills easier. My Amex Centurion and Coutts World cards mean nothing to them as a reference. Not good enough for head office. Well, bu**er it. I’m looking in Malaysia next week: ‘Malaysia my Second Home’ scheme: freehold property purchase, bank accounts, no visa, 90 day stamp at the airport in one minute, bring in one car with no import tax, food more varied that here and (unlike Singapore) just as cheap, fluent (even beautifully quaint) English everywhere.

Maybe I sound a bit arrogant above. It’s not true. I have tried very hard to make it work here. I speak passable Thai, can read and write a bit of it, I treat locals of all classes with respect, and have many Thai friends, including a delightful PA who tries her best to make things work at my house site, but is as equally frustrated as I am. There have to be limits, and I’m close to reaching mine.

So, yes, Mr Womble, there are others who feel the same.

<rant ends> I feel better now

Don't get me started on construction, the general quality or lack of is a downright disgrace. Most of the builders here don't even vibrate their concrete. They use plastic mains water pipes, and i've seen so many dangerous mistakes made eigher through lack of common sense or complete laziness it just amazes me. It seems there is often a complete lack of pride in their own work.

Walking around many houses in Phuket and samui, the construction quality is shocking, some of the materials shouldn't be used even for a wendy house. Yeah it's cheap to build here, but look at the end result.

To build a house properly in thailand is not as cheap as one may think. And to make sure those materials are not damaged, wasted, and used properly you will need to be there every single day pushing them to make sure the work is done in time and properly.

One of the most stressful things in Thailand is having a house built, there is no doubt about that.