Thai Airways Will Not Move To Don Muang Airport

[george]

SUVARNABHUMI

THAI baulks at moving to Don Muang

National airline joins with 60 others in staying put after reports say repairs to new airport will not be very extensive

BANGKOK: -- Thai Airways International along with more than 60 other airlines have confirmed they will stay at Suvarnabhumi Airport despite the government plan to reopen Don Muang as a second international terminal.

Meanwhile, three budget airlines, AirAsia, Jet Star Asia and Tiger Air, are expected to move to Don Muang Airport, said a source in the aviation industry.

At the board of directors meeting yesterday, THAI chairman Chalit Pukbhasuk said the airline had resolved to operate both domestic and international flights at Suvarnabhumi. Earlier, THAI planned to move its non-transit domestic flights to Don Muang.

"We have invested hugely in the new airport and we're also committed to provide facilities to clients of the Star Alliance members," he said.

THAI has invested Bt16 billion in facilities and equipment for the new airport, which has been opened for four months.

Chalit's statement is in line with the comment from an aviation source who said that the Board of Airline Representatives in Thailand (BAR), which represents more than 60 airlines operating in Thailand, including Thai Airways International Plc and all members of Star Alliance, have confirmed that its members will maintain operations at Suvarnabhumi because of the huge investment they have made.

"The airlines are now becoming more confident in using Suvarnabhumi Airport after the government reported the cracks in the taxiways and runway are not serious and it is committed to fixing the problems," the source said.

Council of Engineers President Vira Mavijak also said yesterday that Thai engineers are capable of fixing the problems at Suvarnabhumi without any help from foreign experts. He is against the Airports of Thailand chairman Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr's idea of appointing foreign engineers for the job, citing it would be a disgrace to the country.

"Moreover, problems at Suvarnabhumi are tiny and need not to be concealed given that they do not lead to safety problems," he added.

Transport Minister Theera Haocharoen will meet airline representatives today (February 15) to discuss further details about the operating of two international airports.

Theera cited earlier that Don Muang must be reopened as a domestic and international airport due to congestion at Suvarnabhumi. As some airlines move to Don Muang, traffic would be lighter at Suvarnabhumi and pave the way for repairs of the cracks on runways and taxiways.

It is not certain if Don Muang will be permanently reopened.

Meanwhile, according to the aviation source, Don Muang Airport could be reopened permanently but only for domestic flights.

AirAsia, Tiger Air and Jet Star Asia would move all the operations from Suvarnabhumi Airport to Don Muang Airport once the government makes a final decision on re-opening Don Muang.

"AirAsia is a Malaysian airline while the other two carriers are Singaporean. They will use Don Muang, where they don't need to make much investment," the source said.

However, Thailand's two budget airlines - Nok Air and One Two Go - are considering moving to Don Muang Airport but are waiting for clearer answers on how the authorities would operate the two airports.

-- The Nation 2007-02-15

[Scott]

I fail to understand their reasoning sometimes. The idea of foreign engineers being a disgrace to the nation?!!! I think the airport itself has been a disgrace to the nation. Outside engineers could only bring credibility to any repairs. I don't think the work needs to be done by foreigners, but some oversight, some supervision some expertise would probably make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

[LPCustom69]

I fail to understand their reasoning sometimes. The idea of foreign engineers being a disgrace to the nation?!!! I think the airport itself has been a disgrace to the nation. Outside engineers could only bring credibility to any repairs. I don't think the work needs to be done by foreigners, but some oversight, some supervision some expertise would probably make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

Without a doubt. And I think that some incoming passengers may end up booking into Don Muang by choice because of their safety concerns. It sounds like they just plan on making a window dressing repair.

[Martin]

The umpteen billion baht question is: "Are there voids under the runways, or not?".

[pjallittle]

I fail to understand their reasoning sometimes. The idea of foreign engineers being a disgrace to the nation?!!! I think the airport itself has been a disgrace to the nation. Outside engineers could only bring credibility to any repairs. I don't think the work needs to be done by foreigners, but some oversight, some supervision some expertise would probably make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

Clearly, there's a conflict between the upper echelon of Thai's engineers and the Airport Administration, perhaps the Engineer is more concerned about "face" whereas the head of the airport simply wants to find the best and most effective way of getting the job done at the earliest possible opportunity.

It would be interesting to know what role Thai engineers played in what appears to have been a colossal blunder in not taking into account that the foundations were poorly planned. Perhaps the solution might be found by having outside engineers who have a known expertise in dealing with just these kinds of difficulties attach to the Thai Engineers in a consulting capacity?

If it can be well demonstrated that the mistakes were due to Thai engineers own ineptitudes, then it seems only reasonable to have them step to one side or, at the very least, be put under the supervision and guidance of proven experts.

This is much too important to allow egos be the basis for deciding how to proceed.

[John K]

It looks like the decision is money based. Wait until the rains come.

[JungleBoy]

Quoted from article.

"Moreover, problems at Suvarnabhumi are tiny and need not to be concealed given that they do not lead to safety problems," he added.

Does this mean that if it was a safety problem, that the problem would be concealed?

[Happy Jack]

Quoted from article.

"Moreover, problems at Suvarnabhumi are tiny and need not to be concealed given that they do not lead to safety problems," he added.

Does this mean that if it was a safety problem, that the problem would be concealed?

Of course it does! This is the part of the report which caught my eye too! So from now on I will not be using anything that hasn't had all its non-safety-problem-causing aspects thouroughly revealed.

keeping in mind of course:

- the guy I rented a motorbike from in Chiang Mai who assured me there was no problem with being able to push the front suspension down to the end stops and hold it there by merely leaning on it.

- the lady who owned the guest house where I first stayed in LOS who assured me there was no problem with my room on the third floor having only one narrow access way, no firescape, and no windows which could be opened wide enough even if I was prepared to leap out. (Fortunately I was out the night of the fire!)

- the guy who rented me a car to drive to doi inthanon (I told him where I was going) and assured me it was a good car and would get me there fine - even though he knew it had a huge split in the radiator.

- the taxi driver who assured me it was quite safe to stop for ten minutes on a rail crossing in the middle of Bangkok gridlock.

- the tuk tuk driver who explained that it was quite safe to run a red light if you were turning left.

- and not forgetting the 'girl' who assured me she wasn't a gatoy and suggested I have a fondle of the surgeon's craft to make sure.

Hey, I'm still alive! It must all be OK!

[Pakwa]

If one or more airlines have to move back to Don Muang, Thai Airways, as the national carrier, shall be among them to show example. They shall then make their money back later ...

[nikmcg]

No doubt I'll be alone in suggesting that Thai Airways as the National carrier have done the right thing by sticking with the new airport, so long as necessary repairs are carried out. As the man said they're committed to providing a service to Star Alliance passengers and the new airport is the Thai Airways hub.

We have seen examples of construction issues where massive projects are undertaken here in the UK, not good but these things happen.

I'm sure that Thai Airways have thought about this and their considerable investment in the project, and wouldn't make a decision based on "Ego" if it meant they'd be compromising passenger safety.

It would also be a major pain to have to get accross to the Don Muang airport just to take a short internal flight with them if you'd flown in with another long haul carrier. They must have thought of that also.

Having arrived rather too early for my International flight back to the UK I had a good chance to look around at the much criticised new airport. I thought the facilities were pretty good, duty free shopping was very impressive although the pokey little smoking rooms were nasty, nothing new in that though.

[gbswales]

P - L - E - A - S - E not the "loss of face" argument again!!

1) It is openly admitted that corruption (this only happened under Thaksin of course! ) was the cause of all and any problems

2) There are many reports about cracks in the runways etc - it does appear to have been built on a swamp! Of course this is a matter of concern!

3) Major international airlines will be watching and considereing what to do

4) Thailand cannot lay claim to the greatest safety standards in the world

5) Potential visitors will be looking at this along with other scares such as the coup itself, Tsunami's and the apparent attempts to further restrict nightlife entertainment etc

Anyway how could it be "loss of face" if , as I am sure they would - the internation experts "confirm" the minor nature of the problem- or is the real fear that, IF they found it to be more serious, the authorities would not be able to hide the problem as suggested in the article

Does it have to wait for "loss of life" before they will stop worrying about "loss of face"

[mitrapaap]

Quoted from article.

"Moreover, problems at Suvarnabhumi are tiny and need not to be concealed given that they do not lead to safety problems," he added.

Does this mean that if it was a safety problem, that the problem would be concealed?

Of course it does! This is the part of the report which caught my eye too! So from now on I will not be using anything that hasn't had all its non-safety-problem-causing aspects thouroughly revealed.

keeping in mind of course:

- the guy I rented a motorbike from in Chiang Mai who assured me there was no problem with being able to push the front suspension down to the end stops and hold it there by merely leaning on it.

- the lady who owned the guest house where I first stayed in LOS who assured me there was no problem with my room on the third floor having only one narrow access way, no firescape, and no windows which could be opened wide enough even if I was prepared to leap out. (Fortunately I was out the night of the fire!)

- the guy who rented me a car to drive to doi inthanon (I told him where I was going) and assured me it was a good car and would get me there fine - even though he knew it had a huge split in the radiator.

- the taxi driver who assured me it was quite safe to stop for ten minutes on a rail crossing in the middle of Bangkok gridlock.

- the tuk tuk driver who explained that it was quite safe to run a red light if you were turning left.

- and not forgetting the 'girl' who assured me she wasn't a gatoy and suggested I have a fondle of the surgeon's craft to make sure.

Hey, I'm still alive! It must all be OK!

Life basically is one big danger, however, some people seem to attract problems more than others. I'm glad I can't list up a smilar report. Turning left on a red light is not only common in Thailand and very often allowed by a sign mentioning so.

[Erich]

I have written already several times, that it is a problem if you come from the south - Narathiwat - and you want to catch an international flight with THAI from BKK. Because Air Asia ist the only carrier that connects Narathiwat with Bangkok. If THAI will stay in the new airport and Air Asia will move to the old airport, than we will have lambag. I'm not only talking for myself, but for many other travelers that even come from Malaysia, because the airport ist near to the border.

By the way, the whole discussion is nuts because there is nobody who will be judged about all the trouble, the new airport is representing.

[britmaveric]

Good old FACE will win over safety. You have to love these lot instead of doing the right thing - they cling to this embarrassment of an airport. Sort like the titanic - oh no its unsinkable, yet it sinks in the end.

[Martin]

It is piquant that this problem occurs (literally, as well as figuratively) right at the interface between those who ascribe to the Western 'openness-transparency' culture and those who ascribe to the 'closed-hierarchical' culture.

It is, of course, totally imperative that we, as Westerners, have it explained to us exactly what underlies these runways and gives cause for concern.

It is, also of course, totally unacceptable that people should be unrespectful of those in 'high' positions by probing into such knowledge that it is only right and proper should be reserved for those whose station in life qualifies them to be privy to it.

When Kipling said "East is East, and West is West, and ne-er the twain shall meet", he didn't foresee the wheels of a Boeing or Airbus jumbo jet touching down on Cobra Swamp!!!

[PeaceBlondie]

There are a couple of cultural things I may be misunderstanding.

1) We know that the government lies through its teeth and seldom apologizes, but do corporate executives do the same?

2) Do they lose face when their lies or mistakes become obvious?

[george]

Update:

Don Muang may not be reopened: offiical

BANGKOK: -- Don Muang International Airport may not be reopened due to lower-than-expected number of airlines that have shown the intention of moving their operations to the old airport, said an executive of Airports of Thailand.

Pinit Saraithong, Don Maung director, said the old airport may not be reopened as only three airlines are interested in moving to Don Muang. The airlines operate a number of flights which account for a tiny part of the flights operated at Suvarnabhumi.

"How could we survive with the few number of clients," he said.

AOT earlier expected at least 30 per cent flights from Suvarnabhumi would be moved to Don Muang.

Transport Minister Theera Haocharoen said after the meeting with over 60 airlines today that most of them insist on staying at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

The issue would be finalised by the a panel, chaired by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, which will hold a meeting Friday, he said.

-- The Nation 2007-02-15

[PeaceBlondie]

Sing along in Thai,

"First you say you will; then you say you won't.

First you say you do; then you say you don't.

You're undecided now, so what's it going to be?"

[CHAIYES]

Council of Engineers President Vira Mavijak also said yesterday that Thai engineers are capable of fixing the problems at Suvarnabhumi without any help from foreign experts. He is against the Airports of Thailand chairman Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr's idea of appointing foreign engineers for the job, citing it would be a disgrace to the country.

Well folks this is Thailand where "Face Saving" means everything.

There may well be fundamental engineering design flaws with the airport construction but International users who pay to use the substandard facility will never know that.!

How could you possibly get the same mediocure people who were involved in one way or another in the construction of the facility to investigate the problems.?!

The airport is only 1.7 meters above sea level, so a good storm will most likely render the airport unusable.

Major International airlines should now demand an international team of experts to make an assesment from a safety point of view.

[meom]

Good old FACE will win over safety. You have to love these lot instead of doing the right thing - they cling to this embarrassment of an airport. Sort like the titanic - oh no its unsinkable, yet it sinks in the end.

I agree that the face thing is applicable to the Thais, but what about all the non thai pilots that are landing the planes at the moment? They seem to be very quiet about the whole thing which surprises me because you would expect them to be the first to refuse landing/take off from cracked runways.

[batami]

For my sins (of which I have many) I recently wrote a long paper for a major international conference on the experiences of doing business in China (and what to expect as a westerner judging practices from a western viewpoint) - and I recall a line from this paper which is very apt - I quote "you are in a culture where it is those who have the authority who are the authority" - I invite you to ponder on that for a moment and the all the reported behavior becomes crytal clear... whether in Chian or Thailand

IMHO

[QualityTouristNumberOne]

P - L - E - A - S - E not the "loss of face" argument again!!

1) It is openly admitted that corruption (this only happened under Thaksin of course! ) was the cause of all and any problems

2) There are many reports about cracks in the runways etc - it does appear to have been built on a swamp! Of course this is a matter of concern!

3) Major international airlines will be watching and considereing what to do

4) Thailand cannot lay claim to the greatest safety standards in the world

5) Potential visitors will be looking at this along with other scares such as the coup itself, Tsunami's and the apparent attempts to further restrict nightlife entertainment etc

Anyway how could it be "loss of face" if , as I am sure they would - the internation experts "confirm" the minor nature of the problem- or is the real fear that, IF they found it to be more serious, the authorities would not be able to hide the problem as suggested in the article

Does it have to wait for "loss of life" before they will stop worrying about "loss of face"

Yes,unfortunately,the NTSB in the u.s. and the EASA in Europe have a saying called(i think) "The body prerogative",or something similar,

basically all of the major safety leaps in air travel and aircraft maintenance have come about as a result of catastrophic loss of life,

its been proven time and time again that the biggest companies in the world will routinely choose the "cheap" option,rather than the "safe" one,

and its only after a couple of hundred people get turned into "statistics"(the cost of possible lawsuits is compared to the cost of the repair/upgrade/maintenance change),and its ONLY after A. is proven to cost MORE than B. that they institute safety protocols,strengthen parts,shorten "between maintenance" time etc,

why should we be surprised that money(and face)is coming before safety at suvarna?

I'll tell you what though,

I hope none of us is on that plane thats going to inevitably get torn to pieces because a "Tiny" crack in a runway(read 6 foot gape) rips off the landing gear when the plane is taking off,or landing.

Air travel is a very emotional subject,because once you're on a plane you have no control(unless you're a pilot ),and unlike a car,or boat its an "All or nothing" proposition in people's minds,

we all(erroneously in fact) think that either we get there safely,without incident,or we die horribly in a huge fireball ,

in fact a lot of air crashes are survivable(at least,the INITIAL impact is survivable),and blind panic kills as many people as smoke or impact damage...but its just "plane" wrong that the risks we already face as air passengers be compounded by a litany of errors,denial,corruption,and false pride.

depressing post,I know!,but sadly true...

Edited February 15, 2007 by QualityTouristNumberOne

[ovenman]

Pinit Saraithong, Don Maung director, said the old airport may not be reopened as only three airlines are interested in moving to Don Muang. The airlines operate a number of flights which account for a tiny part of the flights operated at Suvarnabhumi.

"How could we survive with the few number of clients," he said.

Did he actually expect that everybody would move back to Don Muang? If AirAsia, JetStar Asia and Tiger Airways move to Don Muang for openers, it'll be a tidy little earner at first and a business that's simply bound to grow as these airlines expand their operations. It would be a much bigger operation than Chiang Mai airport for example, and somehow CNX manages to stay in business. The AOT wouldn't re-open the entire building just as it was before it closed for commercial operations. The low-cost carriers are the growth end of the business. Figure that AirAsia alone has gone from zero to eighty flights in just three years of flying in Thailand and are planning further expansions as they receive their new Airbus livery.

Edited February 15, 2007 by ovenman

[britmaveric]

Why do I have this sinking feeling... might be seeing the new airport on the show: "Seconds from Disaster"?

[dotcom]

The AOT, Thai International & the Director General of Suvarnapum Airport & everyone else do what the Council of Rulers tell them to do.

[mitrapaap]

There are 3 subjects on Thai Visa which come up again and again and appear to be more and more boring and useless:

foreign teachers, visa runs, suvarnabhumi airport

[steffi]

They are misreading the typical european and british traveller since a lot of those holiday makers are heavy users of low cost airlines. The connections they are going to have to make are going to be a nightmare but Thai are quite happy because if you want to fly somewhere where a low cost airline flys you're going to weigh up the cost of the Thai equivalent flight vs the inconvienience of making it to the lower cost alternative.

I fail to understand their reasoning sometimes. The idea of foreign engineers being a disgrace to the nation?!!! I think the airport itself has been a disgrace to the nation. Outside engineers could only bring credibility to any repairs. I don't think the work needs to be done by foreigners, but some oversight, some supervision some expertise would probably make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

[sriracha john]

There are 3 subjects on Thai Visa which come up again and again and appear to be more and more boring and useless:

foreign teachers, visa runs, suvarnabhumi airport

Speaking of which, I have a friend who is an English teacher and he needed to make a visa run to Singapore and was wondering whether it would involve using suvarnabhumi airport. What do you do think, mitrapaap?

[esprit]

Pity gambling is illegal here as I suspect odds are shortening weekly for all flights to transfer to Don Muck for an unspecified time whilst they refloat Suvarnabhumi.

Shame that Howard Hughes is long gone as he was not adverse to corruption attempts and with his giant seaplane it would have been ideal if Suvarnabhumi turns out to be un-floatable for the Hughes Corp to get sole landing rights

[Plus]

The AOT, Thai International & the Director General of Suvarnapum Airport & everyone else do what the Council of Rulers tell them to do.

If only it was so.

The AOT, Thai International, and Director General of SA don't give a rat's ass as to what generals think. They know that they are practically irreplaceble and it's only six months before the new government takes over.