An Engineer's Explanation Of Suvernabhumi Problems

[bino]

As for the terminal building itself. It was observed that several AC arc welders were used when the steel superstructures were built. To put it short, terse and succinct: the building must be condemned. Only DC or DC reverse welding is acceptable for structural load bearing welding. With casual inspection this, AC welding, can be noted in many places. The entire structure is unsound and will suffer some catastrophic destruction during an earthquake or severe winds.

This part about AC and DC welding interests me... I've tried searching it on Google, but get "too much information", a lot of unrelated hits.

Is there any engineers or welders in the house who could explain the differences?

[pumper]

of course a proper foundation is necessary for any structure.

this a terrible situation .. embarrassing ..

save face, blame farang contractors.

since the cracks are both runway & terminal ..

bull doze the entire airport site ..

& use the old runway & terminal building as fill / rubble.

reopen 2050.

or

the us military has extensive experience turning large areas of buildings into rubble in a few days.

poor shop owners, build out & opening expense down into the swamp.

[Estrada]

Bangkok's new airport runway is safe

Bangkok (dpa) - A two-week investigation into about 100 cracks that have appeared on the taxiways and a runway of Bangkok's new 3.9-billion-dollar Suvarnabhumi Airport found that the damage is less serious than expected, inspectors said Monday.

"Judging from our two-week investigation, I'm confident that the runway is safe," said Tortrakul Yomnak, a chief engineer for the Airports of Thailand government agency, which led the inquiry.

He also gave this Gem which just shows why General Chavalit was wrong when he stated that Thai Engineers were as good as Foreign Engineers, and can build the Airport much cheaper than Foreign Engineers: As you can see his basic mathmatics are worse than a 5 year old, he "discovered that only 3/3rds of the runways were coated"...duh! Excuse me but doesn't that make 100%?

See The Nation 12th Feb:

"The Tortrakul Yomnak fact-finding committee said yesterday seepage was responsible for at least 80 per cent of taxiway damage.

But the runway cracks stemmed from a different root cause, the committee findings said. Surfaces of both runways were supposed to be coated with polymer to increase strength. The probe discovered three-thirds only of the 4,000 metre-long runways were coated".

[cdnvic]

Should have asked their old friends Japan for advice perhaps?

That might not be a good idea. I remember the 1995 Kobe earthquake knocked down one their freeways.

Given a choice of being in Kobe or Bangkok in a strong earthquake which one would you take?

[LaoPo]

Deep Foundation and Piles...............lots and lots of Piles

....ask the Dutch.... Amsterdam is built on -wooden- piles; millions of them and Amsterdam is still live-and-kicking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pile

LaoPo

Edited February 12, 2007 by LaoPo

[sriracha john]

Political interference in the site engineering is always dangerous because political motives tend to be short-term and opportunistic. Engineers may be afraid to confront the demands of the Big Men and simply say, "if that's what they want, then who am I to stand up to them?"

There was never any political interference with the engineering at the airport, was there?

When did they actually start to construct (back filling etc) the new airport? Was this during Thaksin reign or did they start already earlier before he came to power?

Had to climb over a lot of boxes in the basement to pull out a couple of articles:

We start today, says Thaksin

The Nation, Published on Sep 12, 2001

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday said he would lay the foundation stone of the new Suwannabhumi International Airport today - regardless of whether the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has approved a loan to build it.

"We just can't wait any longer, otherwise we won't be able to finish building the airport by December 2004," he said during yesterday's Cabinet meeting.

According to the original plans construction of the terminal would have cost Bt58 billion. But the Thaksin government, looking to save money, has been pushing a terminal re-design, with much emphasis placed on domestic building materials. It believes the new design will trim about Bt20 billion from the terminal's cost.

========================

Local firms want airport work

The Nation, Published on Apr 25, 2002

At least 70 per cent of construction contracts for New Bangkok International Airport should be reserved for local companies, four industry and professional associations said yesterday.

"Thai companies have the capability to do all of the remaining projects," said Krai Tungsanga, a member of the Consulting Engineers Association of Thailand, who added that 20 projects worth billions of baht were yet to be let.

The other organisations were the Thai Contractors Association, the Engineering Institute of Thailand and the Association of Siamese Architects.

Since Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's direction that the government promote the use of local materials in the building of the new airport, local companies should also be granted more opportunities to win construction contracts, Krai said.

Poomson Rojlertjanya, secretary general of the Thai Contractors Association, said foreign firms would tend to use equipment, while local companies would likely use more workers, creating many jobs for Thais. "Hiring foreign firms would most likely help them rather than help stimulate the local economy."

Local companies are fully qualified to do the work, but they have faced many restrictions when tenders are called, he said. "We are ready to do the job, but the hurdles are very high," he said.

Still scheduled for construction are airfield pavement for the two runways, ground improvements for the East runway and taxiways, the cogenerating plant, cargo apron, overnight parking, airport rail link, elevated frontage road, power distribution and duct-bank network system, water distribution and wastewater-collection system, and airport maintenance facility.

[LaoPo]

Had to climb over a lot of boxes in the basement to pull out a couple of articles:

Hope it was dry down there SJ

LaoPo

[slimdog]

When did they actually start to construct (back filling etc) the new airport? Was this during Thaksin reign or did they start already earlier before he came to power?

Whilst there are probably better chronology reports of the new airport, one good reference can be found at:

http://bidding.airportthai.co.th/airportne.../history1en.php

The first page details contracts awarded by the NBIA and cabinet resolutions from 1996 to the end of 2004 and pages 2 - 4 give some of the background info on Proposed sites, future of Don Meung

Interesting snippets are:

May 27th 1997- The Cabinet resolves to approve a revised plan whereby NBIA is to complete construction of the Second Bangkok International Airport by 2003 and have it open for service in 2004. Initially, the airport is to have only 1 runway and a capacity of 20 million passengers per year.

July 21st 1998 - The Cabinet resolves to approve NBIA’s construction of the Second Bangkok International Airport with two runways and a capacity of 30 million passengers per year, at a cost of 120 billion baht.

hope of some help

[samran]

"Don Muang, which served as the capital's airport for 92 years, is on land owned by the Air Force, which has always benefited financially from the commercial airport"

Says it all, doesn't it?

To me it doesn't. I look at it pragmatically.

Who ran Don Muang for 80 of its 92 years? Thats right, the air force. The did a pretty good job of it all things considered.

So what they were peeved? Like any arm of the armed services, they aren't exactly well funded, so any reveune - in this case highly legit revenue - was taken away from them. So, we let them get back into the game of smuggling like their army buddies?

AOT has taken over both operations has has made a mess of it. But how much of a mess?

They thing I wonder about it what exactly do the airlines think? It is all doom and gloom here on the pages of TV (and maybe justifiably so...) but until the airlines decide to pull operations - which safetly concious ones like Qantas will do - then I'm taking everything I read with a grain of salt.

[marshbags]

While there are no doubt problems with the new airport, and perhaps some serious ones at that, this entire issue is mainly one of competing factions in Thailand. You have a group of people who are seeking to discredit Taksin and anything associated with his policies, and they are therefore going to exaggerate any problems to make their case seem stronger. There are also those who lost out at Don Muang, and they too are eager to see those who benefitted at Suvanaphum get their comeuppance. Local papers, particularly the two English-language dailies, are not distinterested parties, and in fact are highly partisan. In light of those facts I would advise people here to take any 'facts' presented by either side with a large grain of salt. The OP's unattributed 'facts' are just one example of what I am talking about.

Even if there are serious problems with the new airport it would be in Thailand's best interest to make it work. The costs of reopening Don Muang, maintaining two airports, and creating an infrastructure that will allow quick connections between the two would probably far outweigh the cost of remedying any problems at the new airport. Closing it would be a tremendous fiasco and the cause of embarrassment even worse than at present. I think some cooler heads realize this and I wonder if the Don Muang plans will eventualize.

Even if you take who,s responsible for what out of the equation we still have very serious safety problems.

They will not magically disappear and eventually to do the job right, they will have to move back to the old one were the safety and facilities are at least adequate for the moaners, while for the majority of us it,s o.k., comforting ( especially now )and appreciated.

I personally was very happy with the old one and cannot undestand all the gripes about the peety stuff, while bleating on how good the new one is / should be.

So face reality, move back and take as long as it needed to retore Thailands Pride to the level it deserves.

Finally let,s get some engineers / specialists of proven ability and integrity from outside Thailand to assess the job and act accordingly.

marshbags

Edited February 13, 2007 by marshbags

[lomatopo]

You are indeed a novice if I need to explain to you why newspapers in Thailand might be highly partisan. Not enough space here for me to get you up to speed on that front sorry to say.

So you are saying that you know why the local English-language press (presumably the Bangkok Post and The Nation) are "...not distinterested parties, and in fact are highly partisan.", but cannot share just one or two quick facts or reasons to support this statement? Who are they partisan to? And why? Surely you could share your knowledge with a quick 5 min. post? Or should we just trust you?

The real issue revolves around the parties that stand to gain or lose if Don Muang reopens. Another poster kindly copied an article that spells it out pretty clearly (hint: men in blue) in case you missed it.

OK, so these newspapers are partisan, and have their own interests but when they publish a story which might support your current conspiracy theory they are to be believed?

Several people commented here a few years ago that the RTAF would be glad to see commercial flight operations move, from Don Muang to Suvarnabhumi, as they could then develop their significant real estate holdings and make billions. I guess that must've been another one of those crazy theories?

I think this issue (possible closure of BKK and a move back to DMK) is a lot bigger than just graft and corruption. The focus is on safety and addressing continued safe aircraft operations. Having a back-up plan by readying DMK seems prudent as they determine the extent of the problems, and any required repairs, at BKK.

[Gary A]

Years ago I was involved in building a new factory in a fairly swampy area between Bangkok and Chachoengsao. The very first thing I noticed was that the highway bridges were several feet above the roadway. When I asked why they would design something like that I was told that the bridges were on pilings and the roads were not. The roads had simply sunk. The factory was built on pilings and if memory serves me correctly the HUGE pilings were driven 23 meters deep. The factory construction went pretty well but someone forgot to have pilings driven for the loading dock. The huge pile drivers could not get close enough to the building so much smaller pile drivers were used. In just one year that loading dock sunk four inches. It was hard for me to believe but I saw it with my own eyes.

I would guess that the runways are sinking and some parts have better support that other parts. The result is that the runways will continue to crack and there will be no way to stop it from happening. It certainly doesn't look good for the future.

[Swelters]

Years ago I was involved in building a new factory in a fairly swampy area between Bangkok and

I would guess that the runways are sinking and some parts have better support that other parts. The result is that the runways will continue to crack and there will be no way to stop it from happening. It certainly doesn't look good for the future.

Exactly right, in my view.

Swelters

[PhilHarries]

As for the terminal building itself. It was observed that several AC arc welders were used when the steel superstructures were built. To put it short, terse and succinct: the building must be condemned. Only DC or DC reverse welding is acceptable for structural load bearing welding. With casual inspection this, AC welding, can be noted in many places. The entire structure is unsound and will suffer some catastrophic destruction during an earthquake or severe winds.

This part about AC and DC welding interests me... I've tried searching it on Google, but get "too much information", a lot of unrelated hits.

Is there any engineers or welders in the house who could explain the differences?

I'd be interested to know how he knew they were ac welders, did he get right up to them and check? Welding machines have built in rectifiers so they can be plugged into the ac mains and perform dc welding.

Anyway to try and answer your question. I am not a welding engineer but am a mechanical engineer with responsibilities extending to welding so, in the absence of any proper welders (there's a joke in there that I'm not sure I'd be allowed to post), I'll add my 2 sen's worth.

I'm not 100% familiar with the structural welding code, AWS D1.1, but do know my way round ASME Section IX which is for pressure vessels and piping.

Basically you can use AC, DC or DC RP depending on the welding process and consumable (filler rods/wire) manufacturer's recommended best practice.

From this you write a weld procedure specification (WPS) and from that you produce a test weld using the variables defined on the WPS which is then subject to mechanical testing to prove it's integrity and the results recorded on a procedure qualification record (PQR).

Provided all the test results are within specification the WPS is said to be qualified by the supporting PQR within limits.

So provided you weld in accordance with the original WPS/PQR you're okay. However ASME IX does allow certain changes to the welding parameters identified as non, or supplementary, essential variables. Clause 409.4 (for those who just love quoted references) assigns "A change from ac to dc, or vice versa; and in dc welding, a change from electrode negative (straight polarity) to electrode positive (reverse polarity), or vice versa" the status of supplementary essential variable. Meaning provided the weld isn't subject to impact testing you can change that variable without affecting the strength of the weld.

So, in practice, whatever is used the finished weld is the same and I don't see we need to worry unduly about the terminal coming crashing down round our ears due to the welding. The foundations, of course, are a completely different kettle of fish - or bucket of sand/mud/whatever.

I'll shut up now as I guess you're all bored to death with the subject. Strewth, who'd have thought I'd be quoting ASME IX on TV? The next Suvarnabhumi memorial lecture will be on Von Karman's Vortex Street theory and it's application to steel stacks.

[sabaijai]

As for the terminal building itself. It was observed that several AC arc welders were used when the steel superstructures were built. To put it short, terse and succinct: the building must be condemned. Only DC or DC reverse welding is acceptable for structural load bearing welding. With casual inspection this, AC welding, can be noted in many places. The entire structure is unsound and will suffer some catastrophic destruction during an earthquake or severe winds.

This part about AC and DC welding interests me... I've tried searching it on Google, but get "too much information", a lot of unrelated hits.

Is there any engineers or welders in the house who could explain the differences?

I'd be interested to know how he knew they were ac welders, did he get right up to them and check? Welding machines have built in rectifiers so they can be plugged into the ac mains and perform dc welding.

Anyway to try and answer your question. I am not a welding engineer but am a mechanical engineer with responsibilities extending to welding so, in the absence of any proper welders (there's a joke in there that I'm not sure I'd be allowed to post), I'll add my 2 sen's worth.

I'm not 100% familiar with the structural welding code, AWS D1.1, but do know my way round ASME Section IX which is for pressure vessels and piping.

Basically you can use AC, DC or DC RP depending on the welding process and consumable (filler rods/wire) manufacturer's recommended best practice.

From this you write a weld procedure specification (WPS) and from that you produce a test weld using the variables defined on the WPS which is then subject to mechanical testing to prove it's integrity and the results recorded on a procedure qualification record (PQR).

Provided all the test results are within specification the WPS is said to be qualified by the supporting PQR within limits.

So provided you weld in accordance with the original WPS/PQR you're okay. However ASME IX does allow certain changes to the welding parameters identified as non, or supplementary, essential variables. Clause 409.4 (for those who just love quoted references) assigns "A change from ac to dc, or vice versa; and in dc welding, a change from electrode negative (straight polarity) to electrode positive (reverse polarity), or vice versa" the status of supplementary essential variable. Meaning provided the weld isn't subject to impact testing you can change that variable without affecting the strength of the weld.

So, in practice, whatever is used the finished weld is the same and I don't see we need to worry unduly about the terminal coming crashing down round our ears due to the welding. The foundations, of course, are a completely different kettle of fish - or bucket of sand/mud/whatever.

I'll shut up now as I guess you're all bored to death with the subject. Strewth, who'd have thought I'd be quoting ASME IX on TV? The next Suvarnabhumi memorial lecture will be on Von Karman's Vortex Street theory and it's application to steel stacks.

Finally some real facts. Where is the engineer referred to in the topic title?

[bino]

Thanks for the info Phil. Most of it was waaay over my head, but his part made sense.

So, in practice, whatever is used the finished weld is the same and I don't see we need to worry unduly about the terminal coming crashing down round our ears due to the welding.

[CymruAmByth]

Arrived today from Manila at 4:50pm and was in the pub on Soi 4 at 6:00pm.

Speak as I find (3rd time though Swampydoom) and it all seems to function ok.

Shame is it falling apart though and will not last beyond Songkran.

[Astropuppy]

There must be a time when some people will understand that every bad thing in Thailand is not/was not the fault of PM Thaksin. He did not make the first ya baa. He did not pay the first "service person." He did not come up with the idea of corruption in Thailand. He did not start the new airport plan forty years ago. He did not have a say in choosing the sight of the new airport. He did not ......

Come on People!!!

One of the primary concourses at the new Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris collapsed on a sunny day. Do any of us really think that Suvarnabhumi Airport is the first airport to have problems? The Architect firm that led the project at the opening was a German firm (http://www.murphyjahn.com/english/frameset_intro.htm) with a lot of brilliant projects to their credit: these were/are not ignorant people with faulty ideas and questionable character.

Projects like this are going to have problems. Especially when they are drawn out over forty years. Do I think that it will take a chunk of money to get the problems fixed: Absolutely. Do I think that this is abnormal in today's world: no way. The bigger something is means the bigger the potential problems it can create (especially in Thailand).

The Suvarnabhumi Airport will someday become a cornerstone to the advancement of Thailand. There are too many good ideas already in place and working for a finger tapping argument about Exit signs, bathrooms, or even drainage (which is a big problem).

The people that push the idea that the biggest problem at the new airport is the Politics of Thailand have hit the real nail on the head.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Astropuppy

[jumnien]

The people that push the idea that the biggest problem at the new airport is the Politics of Thailand have hit the real nail on the head.

This post has been edited by Astropuppy: Today, 2007-02-14 06:13:58

Finally, some common sense prevails.

[p1p]

Where is the engineer referred to in the topic title?

I was emailed the initial text by a very longstanding friend with many years experience in both construction and mechanical engineering, both in the field and teaching at university in the USA. He requested anonymity, which I have complied with.

I have no personal experience or knowledge in the field and can not comment on the accuracy or otherwise of his information. However his qualifications, which include several Masters and a PhD, lend me to have some confidence in his information.

I stand by my initial post and will request that he supply any further information under his own name. This is not likely as his anonymity and privacy is of great import to him.

[cdnvic]

One of the primary concourses at the new Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris collapsed on a sunny day. Do any of us really think that Suvarnabhumi Airport is the first airport to have problems?

Let's aim higher than pointing out that other projects have also been cock-ups. Compare it to projects that haven't had deadly collapses maybe.

Projects like this are going to have problems. Especially when they are drawn out over forty years. Do I think that it will take a chunk of money to get the problems fixed: Absolutely. Do I think that this is abnormal in today's world: no way.

Again, other screw-ups are not an excuse for these ones.

The Suvarnabhumi Airport will someday become a cornerstone to the advancement of Thailand.

Taken right out of the brochure.

There are too many good ideas already in place and working for a finger tapping argument about Exit signs, bathrooms, or even drainage (which is a big problem).

Such as?

The people that push the idea that the biggest problem at the new airport is the Politics of Thailand have hit the real nail on the head.

That was what caused much of the problems, but it in itself is not the physical problem that needs to be rectified. The OP's post explained the underlying engineering problems that, if correct, will prove themselves to be daunting tasks from an engineering perspective alone, notwithstanding the financial, PR and political costs involved.

At this point though there is so much unknown about the true extent of the problem that there's really no way for anyone to know exactly what's really going on under the airport. All I know is that these problems are showing up pretty fast for such a recently completed project, and corruption, skimming, and halfassed work isn't exactly uncommon on Thai building projects.

While it may not be time to panic, it's certainly too early to dismiss the concerns.

Edited February 14, 2007 by cdnvic

[lomatopo]

Where is the engineer referred to in the topic title?

I was emailed the initial text by a very longstanding friend with many years experience in both construction and mechanical engineering, both in the field and teaching at university in the USA. He requested anonymity, which I have complied with.

I have no personal experience or knowledge in the field and can not comment on the accuracy or otherwise of his information. However his qualifications, which include several Masters and a PhD, lend me to have some confidence in his information.

I stand by my initial post and will request that he supply any further information under his own name. This is not likely as his anonymity and privacy is of great import to him.

You should have included this as a form of an introduction to your original post. That way we would have known it for what most have assumed it is, useless.

It's honestly hard to believe that the author, based on the style and content, is in anyway involved in academia, other than say as a sanitation engineer. What motivates someone to write an article like this, and yet wish to remain anonymous, and not be subject to peer review?

Clearly without understanding the qualifications of the author, and without attributing quotes and backing up his intimate knowledge of the construction process, the article should be ignored.

Perhaps you could just answer a few questions:

1.) Has the author been to Thailand?

2.) Has the author been to Suvarnabhumi Airport? If so, how many times? And during which phases of construction?

3.) Where and when did he interview the U.S. Fire Marshall quoted?

4.) When did the author observe the sub-standard welding?

5.) Quote: "Undoubtedly substandard materials and workmanship has gone into virtually all phases of construction." Please share just a few details?

Its great that you stand by your post, OK, maybe not your post, and maybe you're standing off to the side a bit, but as you say you "...have no personal experience or knowledge in the field and can not comment on the accuracy or otherwise of his information". So it really doesn't matter if you stand or sit down.

Edited February 14, 2007 by lomatopo

[pap]

Hopefully as it is perceived the US Fire Marshall ( Dillon ? ) would condem the airport per-se, then the sooner the word gets around to all other US citizens the better. Given their abilty to turn any situation into a crisis and push the panic button, then perhaps they will all perceive it is far too dangerous to travel here hence relieving Thailand of another "shed" full of US experts. Mind you if it was rumoured that Bin Laden was an AOT Director, 50% of Americans would probably believe it. So brilliant are they at knowing the answers, how many kilometres of freeway were destroyed at the last major Earthquake in Los Angeles as they had not been designed to the then current ( at the time of construction) earthquake design data parameters? Should have asked their old friends Japan for advice perhaps?

You obviously have been involved in many construction projects in Thailand and thus you know contractors never cut corners.

I agree with you. Better to wait until AFTER an 875,000 kg fully loaded 747 splatters across the tarmac to push the panic button.

Than you have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so". Why fix something that hasn't killed people yet? Right? Am I Right? Pesky Americans anyhow. How dare they apply logic to something?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1795116.stm

They have asked the Japanese. Why reinvent the wheel? The fact is that even constructions companies in the US are not immune to cutting corners.

It is not a good idea in any country. The fact that corruption occurs everywhere doesn't excuse it and can't bring back the dead. Press panic button here.

[ThaiGoon]

And today, Thairath is reporting that there are cracks on 40 pillars of the Bang Na - Chonburi expressway. According to an unnamed civil engineer whom the Thairath reporter talked to, they didn't appear to be just surface cracks. Oh well...

[qualtrough]

I agree with you. Better to wait until AFTER an 875,000 kg fully loaded 747 splatters across the tarmac to push the panic button.

Than you have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so". Why fix something that hasn't killed people yet? Right? Am I Right? Pesky Americans anyhow. How dare they apply logic to something?

If any of the international airlines taking off and landing at Suwanaphum thought that there was any danger of this happening they would pull their aircraft from that route in a New York second. To my knowledge that has not happened yet, which tells me that much or most of the doom is primarily BS. As with many issues here, it is the politics. Much of the claims here, in the newspapers, and elsewhere are totally unsubtantiated. BTW, if you think there were no foreign engineers working on that project it would be unique among large projects in Thailand.

[cdnvic]

If you look through the record of aviation disasters you will find plenty involving major airlines using airports with inoperable or failing equipment. That being said, a 747 is not going to "splatter across the tarmac" from a runway crack. That kind of panicky overstatement just makes legitimate concerns get overlooked as people dismiss the problems as overblown.

[jumnien]

From today's Bangkok Post:

Star backs THAI stand on airport

Alliance says two sites too costly

BOONSONG KOSITCHOTETHANA

Carriers under the Star Alliance, one of the world's largest airline groups, are backing Thai Airways International in its contention that Suvarnabhumi should be Bangkok's only international airport. The nine Star airlines that operate flights through Bangkok's troubled new airport are collectively expected to make a formal announcement confirming their stance within two days, according to industry insiders.

The nine are ANA, Asiana Airlines, Austrian, Thai Airways, Lufthansa, SAS, Swiss, Singapore Airlines and United. They operate 1,092 departures a week, providing nearly half the passenger seats through Suvarnabhumi.

Air India and Turkish Airlines, which also operate through the new airport and are due to join the alliance, also favour the ''under one roof'' strategy.

Star will become the first major international airline group to take an official stand in the debate surrounding the proposed reopening of Don Muang airport for international services.

The initial response from many international carriers was a preference to stay at Suvarnabhumi until the government made clear its policy, which had left them confused and frustrated.

The cabinet's resolution last week to fully reopen Don Muang as Bangkok's second international airport raised a host of questions over the practicality and economic sense of having two airports running concurrently. It also overturned a long-standing policy to have only one international airport serving the capital.

The preference by most international airlines to remain at Suvarnabhumi could deal a blow to the Surayud Chulanont administration's plan to move some commercial flights back to Don Muang to ease heavy traffic and free up room to carry out repairs to damaged runways and taxiways at Suvarnabhumi.

Only the no-frills airline Thai AirAsia and its parent AirAsia, Southeast Asia's largest low-cost carrier, have expressed willingness to return to Don Muang.

Insiders said Star airlines had agreed to stick together and follow the lead of Thai Airways, the group's local host carrier, which provides extensive support services including premium passenger lounges at Suvarnabhumi.

Splitting operations between Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi could seriously jeopardise the ability of Star airlines to offer ''seamless'' passenger services, they said.In its statement, Star is expected to scrupulously avoid becoming involved in sensitive political issues such as the safety of Suvarnabhumi for flights.

THAI has the backing of its union, which has submitted a letter of protest to Gen Surayud to press the case for keeping its international flights and connecting domestic services at Suvarnabhumi.

Thai Airways president Apinan Sumanaseni said the cost of operating at two sites would be prohibitive. The airline has already invested 16 billion baht in support facilities including flight operation and aircraft maintenance centres and flight kitchen at Suvarnabhumi.

Adm Theera Haocharoen, the transport minister, insisted to reporters yesterday that authorities would not force airlines to move back to Don Muang.

He supported a recommendation by a panel of investigators that the government should not close the 125-billion-baht new airport during repair work.

THAI shares closed yesterday on the Stock Exchange of Thailand at 44.75 baht, up 25 satang, in trade worth 38.85 million baht.

[qualtrough]

MDE you beat me to it in posting the Post article--thanks.

Further to my previous post:

1. Do any of you think that the member airlines of the Star Alliance would be taking this stance if they attached any credibility to the arguments that have been advanced on this thread and elsewhere that the new airport presents a safety hazard and should be shut down?

2. Do you realize what kind of financial risks they would face if they knowingly operated at an airport known to be as dangerous as claimed here and an accident took place? Do you think their safety engineers, insurance people, bean counters, etc. don't understand that?

The coming statement by the Star Alliance, if true, points to the fact that this entire issue is a political one--conveniently hung on a combined safety/discredited former leader hook.

[cclub75]

1. Do any of you think that the member airlines of the Star Alliance would be taking this stance if they attached any credibility to the arguments that have been advanced on this thread and elsewhere that the new airport presents a safety hazard and should be shut down?

A rather flawed logic.

You seem to assume that airlines have a team of engineers on the field, in order to assess the assessments of the thai government.

Even within the thai gvt nobody agrees, and actually knows the reality of the situation.

Here are quotes from the The Tortrakul Yomnak fact-finding committee, presented monday...

"I also doubt if the PVD technique was done right. How do we know the contractors completed the drainage process. There is no data supporting the [contractors'] claim settlement in the treated soil layer was stopped [before paving commenced].

Then a quote from the boss of AOT, Saprang.

"Nobody can guarantee anything today," Saprang said. "This [Tortrakul] committee has had only two weeks. The [pavement] problem will certainly continue into the future and we need help from foreign experts. But the government will have to decide if this is the way it wants to proceed because hiring experts may involve a lot of money. "

So to sum' up :

-we don't know if the work was properly done (!)

-we should hire foreign experts, but it's... expensive

Furthermore you have to understand that the situation is evolving. That's the beauty of the "cracks" issue... A team of engineers could probably, at this very moment, assess and report the number of cracks (and size, location etc.). But that's not the point.

The point is : what will happen with the rainy season ? It will have an effect ? If yes, to what extend. etc. With XXXX more landing/take offs, damages will increase ? etc. The repairing operations will be enough to stabilize the situation ? etc.

[britmaveric]

Star Alliance simply doesnt want to pay the costs acquired for another move. This is all about dosh, plain and simple. They are gambling nothing bad will happen, however if smth does happen - there will be massive legal action.