Koh Samui Voted 14th Down From 6th Last Year

[meatgrowler]

Gatorade wrote:

The fares compare favourably with similar operations in Europe.

Uh, so?

We're not in Europe.

This comparison is worthless.

BKK

Why? I am going from LHR to Brussels next month and the fare on British Midland is much more expensive than BKK Air -Samui to Bangkok.

The distance to BRU is shorter and the service non-existent.

Therefore a comparison is perfectly valid as I am paying for the air fares.

Not sure where you are getting your prices from, but you are not getting a good deal! Even the standard BA fare is only £78.00. In any case, perhaps it is better to compare an EU "holiday" destination with Samui.

If I booked today for a few weeks time, these are the prices I can get:

London to Malaga with Easyjet - £57.00 inc taxes

London to malaga with BA - £56.00 inc taxes

Bangkok to Samui with BKK Airways - £120 (7,800 baht) inc taxes

Now Malaga is twice as far and the European airlines will be paying European wages for all staff, inc airport workers.

Now work out where the profit is being made.

you are comparing apples with oranges.

1.if you want to compare easy jet then comare it with air aisa or any other budget airline.

i made the mistake of flying easy jet once.... the plane was dirty there was no service and there was no food or drinks anything you wanted was at extra price and the terminal looked like something from world war 2.

BKA is a botique airline and it says so in every publication they put out. so you cant compare them with a budget airline.

2. those "cheap airlines" you are referring to dont have the same costs as bangkok airways as they dont own and opperate a private airports. yes bangkok airway has a few private airports well maintained and well serviced and if you fly with them you need to pay.BKA is a botique airline. and you pay accordingly.

Bangkok airport is not a Monopoly as if you wish you can buy land on the other side of Samui and apply for a new airport.

3. they can take waht ever price they feel like its a private businness with only profits in mind.. they dont anyone any explenations if you dont like it take the ferry or build a new aiport and land there with your own plane.

Off topic a tad...ive just checked out firefly,from to samui to penang and back £41 english pounds 2hrs25 min flite each way..easyjet conditions maybe but sounds a bargain for visa runs....half the price and more than bangkok airways flites samui-bangkok,and the flying time is more than double....sort it out bangkok air!

[LaoPo]

Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith in any survey that had Majorca/Ibiza as the 3rd best islands in the world.

There is a very wealthy upmarket side to Ibiza away from the raves - it was there before the raves, is still there and will outlast them.

I agree with Prakanong. Majorca and Ibiza are exceptionally beautiful places. I doubt if Monkeybaeg has spent time there, looking at the places away from the low end night life.

With all due respect, you doubt wrong.

I'm very well aware that Majorca is more than Palma Nova & Magaluf, and that Ibiza has more to offer than San Antonio.

Nice as they are, whether they are "exceptionally beautiful" is a matter of personal taste & opinion. Having been to Majorca, I think, 6 times, and 3 times to Ibiza, as well as a reasonable number of the other islands on the list, and several which are not, I feel very comfortable with my opinion. My opinion being that they are not the 3rd best islands in the world.

Nobody said or wrote that they are the "3rd best islands in the world"; you did...

The published survey was from Conde Nast amongst their readers. The magazine is an upscale kind of magazine and read by the more wealthy travelers.

I've been coming to both Mallorca and Ibiza for more than 30 years and believe me, I know the islands very well.

Especially Ibiza has indeed a very wealthy upmarket side and you have no idea how many VIP's from Europe (and US) bought or built villas there. One cannot compare the islands of Thailand with Mallorca/Ibiza because they're both in a different part of the world.

I love both scenes and both have their own charmes.

As a matter of fact we are invited to a 3-day exclusive Wedding on Ibiza, the end of this month, and people from around the world are flying in, to attend the Wedding; will be fun

LaoPo

[ClaudeFeller]

BKK Airways is very expensive!

Maybe there should be a Thai Air flight from Europe to BKK then to Surathani in the early morning with additional customer service to go to Samui by bus/ferry: No hassle with luggage, no crapy bus by Panthip, a good ferry like Lompraya but a lot bigger to bring you to Samui. This has to be twice a day - at noon and in the afternoon back to Surath.

On Samui there has to be a van service (again like Lompraya) at the ferry pier to bring you to your hotel.

No luggage carrying would be the most important!! Add travel time compared with Bangkok Air maybe 3 hours.

Thai Airways together with TAKS could surely arrange this less than half of the price of Bangkok Air + Taxi fares!

I am sure this will come soon.

[LaoPo]

BKK Airways is very expensive!

Maybe there should be a Thai Air flight from Europe to BKK then to Surathani in the early morning with additional customer service to go to Samui by bus/ferry: No hassle with luggage, no crapy bus by Panthip, a good ferry like Lompraya but a lot bigger to bring you to Samui. This has to be twice a day - at noon and in the afternoon back to Surath.

On Samui there has to be a van service (again like Lompraya) at the ferry pier to bring you to your hotel.

No luggage carrying would be the most important!! Add travel time compared with Bangkok Air maybe 3 hours.

Thai Airways together with TAKS could surely arrange this less than half of the price of Bangkok Air + Taxi fares!

I am sure this will come soon.

Although your idea sounds nice I think you should add: 3-6 hours....at least!

Apart from that, most people like a fast and quick stop-over instead flying to Surat Thani>>>>airport bus to>>>>(waiting for) ferry>>>>bus....

After all Europe to Thailand is between 10-12 hours depending where you fly from and is a tiring trip; people like to rest after that, not travel more hours.

Also: IF people have Samui as destination (without other place in LOS) they book the trip in advance with their local travel agents and they don't care about the BKK airways' price they just look at the TOTAL price for their holiday.

Your idea is more fit for Backpackers, not the 'normal' tourists, but:

just IMHO.

LaoPo

[Charma]

you are comparing apples with oranges.

1.if you want to compare easy jet then comare it with air aisa or any other budget airline.

i made the mistake of flying easy jet once.... the plane was dirty there was no service and there was no food or drinks anything you wanted was at extra price and the terminal looked like something from world war 2.

BKA is a botique airline and it says so in every publication they put out. so you cant compare them with a budget airline.

2. those "cheap airlines" you are referring to dont have the same costs as bangkok airways as they dont own and opperate a private airports. yes bangkok airway has a few private airports well maintained and well serviced and if you fly with them you need to pay.BKA is a botique airline. and you pay accordingly.

Bangkok airport is not a Monopoly as if you wish you can buy land on the other side of Samui and apply for a new airport.

3. they can take waht ever price they feel like its a private businness with only profits in mind.. they dont anyone any explenations if you dont like it take the ferry or build a new aiport and land there with your own plane.

I have just a few issues with your post:

• You obviously don't like Easyjet - but I notice that you decided to ignore the cheaper BA flight
  
• You state that those airlines don't have the costs of running an airport. Do you think that the airport operators let them use the airports for free?
  
• You have totally missed the points being made about the difference between competition amongst, say, local shops, where one can easily open up and compete and those that, for reasons of sanity, it is clearly not feasable or desirable to build more.
  

As for the "boutique" airline. As I said before that they are a very decent carrier, but you are easily impressed if you feel that a cup of orange squash and a mini danish pastry are worth double price tickets!

To bring this back to topic - the air fares are just ONE of the things that will not help Samui fight back against its decline.

[womble]

Gatorade wrote:

The fares compare favourably with similar operations in Europe.

Uh, so?

We're not in Europe.

This comparison is worthless.

BKK

Why? I am going from LHR to Brussels next month and the fare on British Midland is much more expensive than BKK Air -Samui to Bangkok.

The distance to BRU is shorter and the service non-existent.

Therefore a comparison is perfectly valid as I am paying for the air fares.

Not sure where you are getting your prices from, but you are not getting a good deal! Even the standard BA fare is only £78.00. In any case, perhaps it is better to compare an EU "holiday" destination with Samui.

If I booked today for a few weeks time, these are the prices I can get:

London to Malaga with Easyjet - £57.00 inc taxes

London to malaga with BA - £56.00 inc taxes

Bangkok to Samui with BKK Airways - £120 (7,800 baht) inc taxes

Now Malaga is twice as far and the European airlines will be paying European wages for all staff, inc airport workers.

Now work out where the profit is being made.

you are comparing apples with oranges.

1.if you want to compare easy jet then comare it with air aisa or any other budget airline.

i made the mistake of flying easy jet once.... the plane was dirty there was no service and there was no food or drinks anything you wanted was at extra price and the terminal looked like something from world war 2.

BKA is a botique airline and it says so in every publication they put out. so you cant compare them with a budget airline.

2. those "cheap airlines" you are referring to dont have the same costs as bangkok airways as they dont own and opperate a private airports. yes bangkok airway has a few private airports well maintained and well serviced and if you fly with them you need to pay.BKA is a botique airline. and you pay accordingly.

Bangkok airport is not a Monopoly as if you wish you can buy land on the other side of Samui and apply for a new airport.

3. they can take waht ever price they feel like its a private businness with only profits in mind.. they dont anyone any explenations if you dont like it take the ferry or build a new aiport and land there with your own plane.

It is a monopoly. You don't seriously believe you could just buy the land and build an airport if you had the money. You need licences. Do you not think Bkk Air with all their power may do a deal with the government or anyone else in order to hold onto their monopoly. I expect all future transport ministers could make a few bucks by threatening a second airport then doing a deal with the boss to forget about the idea.

You are right that those cheap airlines cannot be compared in quality to bkk air. But on a short flight the majority of passengers are only interested in price. When flights are longer for many of us service starts to become more important and you will pay more for it but, If there was a choice between air asia and bkk air 3000 baht rtn and 7500 rtn respectivley no prises for guessing who would be full and who would have nearly empty.

The extra on our tickets here allows the airline to engage in price wars on other routes. It is true that we are subsidising those routes. The fact Samui and Trat are the only flights that are not discounted proves this.

Simple question to highdiver.....

If bkk air announced tomorrow that fares are to rise to 15,500 rtn due to 'increasing operational costs' would you be ok with that?

[highdiver]

Gatorade wrote:

The fares compare favourably with similar operations in Europe.

Uh, so?

We're not in Europe.

This comparison is worthless.

BKK

Why? I am going from LHR to Brussels next month and the fare on British Midland is much more expensive than BKK Air -Samui to Bangkok.

The distance to BRU is shorter and the service non-existent.

Therefore a comparison is perfectly valid as I am paying for the air fares.

Not sure where you are getting your prices from, but you are not getting a good deal! Even the standard BA fare is only £78.00. In any case, perhaps it is better to compare an EU "holiday" destination with Samui.

If I booked today for a few weeks time, these are the prices I can get:

London to Malaga with Easyjet - £57.00 inc taxes

London to malaga with BA - £56.00 inc taxes

Bangkok to Samui with BKK Airways - £120 (7,800 baht) inc taxes

Now Malaga is twice as far and the European airlines will be paying European wages for all staff, inc airport workers.

Now work out where the profit is being made.

you are comparing apples with oranges.

1.if you want to compare easy jet then comare it with air aisa or any other budget airline.

i made the mistake of flying easy jet once.... the plane was dirty there was no service and there was no food or drinks anything you wanted was at extra price and the terminal looked like something from world war 2.

BKA is a botique airline and it says so in every publication they put out. so you cant compare them with a budget airline.

2. those "cheap airlines" you are referring to dont have the same costs as bangkok airways as they dont own and opperate a private airports. yes bangkok airway has a few private airports well maintained and well serviced and if you fly with them you need to pay.BKA is a botique airline. and you pay accordingly.

Bangkok airport is not a Monopoly as if you wish you can buy land on the other side of Samui and apply for a new airport.

3. they can take waht ever price they feel like its a private businness with only profits in mind.. they dont anyone any explenations if you dont like it take the ferry or build a new aiport and land there with your own plane.

It is a monopoly. You don't seriously believe you could just buy the land and build an airport if you had the money. You need licences. Do you not think Bkk Air with all their power may do a deal with the government or anyone else in order to hold onto their monopoly. I expect all future transport ministers could make a few bucks by threatening a second airport then doing a deal with the boss to forget about the idea.

no its not a Monopoly as they dont have the only acess to Samui. ifyou wish to build an airport you can...

yes I seriously do belive its possible and there have been numerous investors that cheked this in past years the last one being Air Asia that had even applied for a liscnece however... the price of land is so expensive it will make it not profitable.

why is bangkok profitable because they bought the land many years ago when it was cheap. then they applied for a liscence and every one in the industry joked about it... see who is loughing now all the way to the bank.

You are right that those cheap airlines cannot be compared in quality to bkk air. But on a short flight the majority of passengers are only interested in price. When flights are longer for many of us service starts to become more important and you will pay more for it but, If there was a choice between air asia and bkk air 3000 baht rtn and 7500 rtn respectivley no prises for guessing who would be full and who would have nearly empty.

yes you are right if Air Asia that is loosing money all the time will buy land and build an airport not sponsored by the goverment but totaly private and will need to financially support this air port including the transportation of jet fuel and keeping a nice clean well serviced airport then they too will charge a lot more then 3000 baht per ticket.

The extra on our tickets here allows the airline to engage in price wars on other routes. It is true that we are subsidising those routes. The fact Samui and Trat are the only flights that are not discounted proves this.

And what makes this different from any other airline that has exclusivity to any destination??

the price you pay bangkok airways is not only for air fair.. you are paying them for building and maintaining an airport on samui.

Simple question to highdiver.....

If bkk air announced tomorrow that fares are to rise to 15,500 rtn due to 'increasing operational costs' would you be ok with that?

offcourse I will be ok with that... if i can afford something then I dont. BKA has the right to raise prices whle you and I have the right to use the service or not.. As long as there are enough people that wish to use the service then they will be profitable.

[Monkeybeag]

Personally, I wouldn't put too much faith in any survey that had Majorca/Ibiza as the 3rd best islands in the world.

There is a very wealthy upmarket side to Ibiza away from the raves - it was there before the raves, is still there and will outlast them.

I agree with Prakanong. Majorca and Ibiza are exceptionally beautiful places. I doubt if Monkeybaeg has spent time there, looking at the places away from the low end night life.

With all due respect, you doubt wrong.

I'm very well aware that Majorca is more than Palma Nova & Magaluf, and that Ibiza has more to offer than San Antonio.

Nice as they are, whether they are "exceptionally beautiful" is a matter of personal taste & opinion. Having been to Majorca, I think, 6 times, and 3 times to Ibiza, as well as a reasonable number of the other islands on the list, and several which are not, I feel very comfortable with my opinion. My opinion being that they are not the 3rd best islands in the world.

Nobody said or wrote that they are the "3rd best islands in the world"; you did...

The published survey was from Conde Nast amongst their readers. The magazine is an upscale kind of magazine and read by the more wealthy travelers.

I've been coming to both Mallorca and Ibiza for more than 30 years and believe me, I know the islands very well.

Especially Ibiza has indeed a very wealthy upmarket side and you have no idea how many VIP's from Europe (and US) bought or built villas there. One cannot compare the islands of Thailand with Mallorca/Ibiza because they're both in a different part of the world.

I love both scenes and both have their own charmes.

As a matter of fact we are invited to a 3-day exclusive Wedding on Ibiza, the end of this month, and people from around the world are flying in, to attend the Wedding; will be fun

LaoPo

Ok, Balearics were voted 3rd favourite, not 3rd best. I obviously wasn't quite pedantic enough.

(on the subject of being pedantic, there is no "e" in charms, and 2 "l"s in travellers)

I have no idea how many VIP's have bought villas there? That's rather presumptious of you. How do you know this?

One cannot compare the Balearics to the Islands of Thailand? You seem very keen to take very precise quotes from a guide which, by your own standards, is essentially worthless.

It would have saved some server space & my time if you had simply posted what you really wanted everyone to know - you've been invited to an "exclusive" wedding on Ibiza.

Do have a good time.

[highdiver]

you are comparing apples with oranges.

1.if you want to compare easy jet then comare it with air aisa or any other budget airline.

i made the mistake of flying easy jet once.... the plane was dirty there was no service and there was no food or drinks anything you wanted was at extra price and the terminal looked like something from world war 2.

BKA is a botique airline and it says so in every publication they put out. so you cant compare them with a budget airline.

2. those "cheap airlines" you are referring to dont have the same costs as bangkok airways as they dont own and opperate a private airports. yes bangkok airway has a few private airports well maintained and well serviced and if you fly with them you need to pay.BKA is a botique airline. and you pay accordingly.

Bangkok airport is not a Monopoly as if you wish you can buy land on the other side of Samui and apply for a new airport.

3. they can take waht ever price they feel like its a private businness with only profits in mind.. they dont anyone any explenations if you dont like it take the ferry or build a new aiport and land there with your own plane.

I have just a few issues with your post:

• You obviously don't like Easyjet - but I notice that you decided to ignore the cheaper BA flight
  no i did not ignore it as BA is in is in the same packege as them on that route.
  
• You state that those airlines don't have the costs of running an airport. Do you think that the airport operators let them use the airports for free?
  No they are charged for using the airport but as those airports owned by the goverment they are subsidised and price controlled which may explain why hethrow is one of the ugliest worst serviced airports in the world.
  and while those airlines that use those airports pay landing and gate fees they dont pay for maintaining the whole aiport infesrstructure.
  on the financila side as you mentioned them BA is loosing billions.. BKA is profitable. who do you think knows business better.
  
• You have totally missed the points being made about the difference between competition amongst, say, local shops, where one can easily open up and compete and those that, for reasons of sanity, it is clearly not feasable or desirable to build more.
  I guess we see things diferently
  

As for the "boutique" airline. As I said before that they are a very decent carrier, but you are easily impressed if you feel that a cup of orange squash and a mini danish pastry are worth double price tickets!

again you are mssing the finer details. I am impressed by them having a proper built airport that does not sink or crack..

a proper ILS sytem even for such a small airfield. or the beautifull decor and furnitre along with enough staff so you wait in line a resonable time and for 45 minutes. I am impressed by the new fleet the well trained maintenece staff that work by the book. the coridnation and prsetation. i am impressed by the attention to details and the qulity of service.

At the End of the day If a tourist wishes to visit Samui they have a choice:

1.they can fly a budget airline hurdled up like cattle to Surat Airport and enjoy the standard of a goverment owned airport then catch a bus to donsak and ride the ferry to Samui . as those wonderfull days 15 years ago...

2.they can use a private service provided by BKA that gives you the option to fly to the private airport they built in Samui.

it seems that many of tem have chosen option 2 To bring this back to topic - the air fares are just ONE of the things that will not help Samui fight back against its decline.

[LaoPo]

Ok, Balearics were voted 3rd favourite , not 3rd best. I obviously wasn't quite pedantic enough.

(on the subject of being pedantic, there is no "e" in charms, and 2 "l"s in travellers)

I have no idea how many VIP's have bought villas there? That's rather presumptious of you. How do you know this?

One cannot compare the Balearics to the Islands of Thailand? You seem very keen to take very precise quotes from a guide which, by your own standards, is essentially worthless.

It would have saved some server space & my time if you had simply posted what you really wanted everyone to know - you've been invited to an "exclusive" wedding on Ibiza.

Do have a good time.

Thank you for pointing to my writing errors but I don't understand why you are so itchy ?

Check your own on: Favourite, Balearics and "presumptious' as it depends if one writes in English-English or US English; that, at least says my spell checker. (Travelers with ONE 'l' instead of two...), meaning all those words are underlined with "........". If that shows, I correct, but obviously not to your satisfaction Sir.

But of course, I'm not 100% perfect with my English since I'm not native English speaking/writing/reading. I try to do my best like in 4 other languages.

Have a good day.

LaoPo

[Charma]

no i did not ignore it as BA is in is in the same packege as them on that route.

No they are charged for using the airport but as those airports owned by the goverment they are subsidised and price controlled which may explain why hethrow is one of the ugliest worst serviced airports in the world.

and while those airlines that use those airports pay landing and gate fees they dont pay for maintaining the whole aiport infesrstructure.

on the financila side as you mentioned them BA is loosing billions.. BKA is profitable. who do you think knows business better.

again you are mssing the finer details. I am impressed by them having a proper built airport that does not sink or crack..

a proper ILS sytem even for such a small airfield. or the beautifull decor and furnitre along with enough staff so you wait in line a resonable time and for 45 minutes. I am impressed by the new fleet the well trained maintenece staff that work by the book. the coridnation and prsetation. i am impressed by the attention to details and the qulity of service.

You should check your facts before posting. BAA is a company and makes over a billion of dollars in yearly profits. Are you suggesting that Samui airport is a proper airport and all theirs are not?

You have put BA in the same group as Easyjet and suggested they are losing billions. Last year BA made 1.2 billion dollars profit. The airlines and operators all manage to make good profits and still offer good deals to passengers.

In any case, we do not need to look afar for comparison - we need look no further than what BKK Airways charge to other destinations.

Incidentally, you seem easily impressed with a number of things, but I was wondering how you knew that maintenance staff were well trained and do everything by the book. Do you make a point of going in and checking this or have you been reading the in-flight magazine?

Edited September 7, 2007 by Charma

[Samuian]

after all just one more question: "how much of travel and catering service is needed for an 50 to 70 Minutes flight?

Champagne anyone, or white perigord truffels, a personal attendant?

Besides haven't yet seen anything near to this! as another poster wrote: a small paper cup of Orange squash, a small pastry or an Nescafe "Cappucino"... does this make up the horrendous (100-200%) mark up in regional travel expenses?

[mattias33]

Totally agree with samuian in this post. To mension "catering" as a reason for this prices is patetic. Aswell as "safety", all airlines are aproved by the same organisations, faa,fcl,icao and so on. Its the same rules for them all and bangkok airways is not better than anyone else. They are using their monopoly and thats the fact.

Another big thing that off course scare off the tourists big time is (as mentioned in many threads before) the taximaffia. That really needs to be fixed. I heard so many people say that they dont want to come back for that reason alone. Imagine as a backpacker taking the cheapest thaibus from bangkok to samui for 400 baht, and end up in nathon with the only option to pay taxis sometimes up to 1000 baht to go to "civilisation" in chaweng or lamai or something similar. Again it is a bit in our hands to solve it, not totaly but if all of us expats collectively NEVER use taxis, and collectivly NEVER use bangkok air, maybe the prices go down eventually. I myself was in Bangkok last week and for the first time i drove to suratthani and flew from there. Very smooth and very cheap. 599 baht for a firefly ticket and from my house to surathani airport it took 3 hours and 20 minuites including the boat! Easy. Stop using Bangkok air and the price go down. I do beleive thats important for tourism. And for us off course.

[koheesti]

no its not a Monopoly as they dont have the only acess to Samui.

ifyou wish to build an airport you can...

-----------------

And what makes this different from any other airline that has exclusivity to any destination??

So how does that not make it a monopoly? Just because you can take a boat instead? Or spend millions building your own airport? Well if that's the case there isn't a single monopoly on the planet.

[womble]

no its not a Monopoly as they dont have the only acess to Samui.

ifyou wish to build an airport you can...

-----------------

And what makes this different from any other airline that has exclusivity to any destination??

So how does that not make it a monopoly? Just because you can take a boat instead? Or spend millions building your own airport? Well if that's the case there isn't a single monopoly on the planet.

They have the monopoly on access by air from bangkok then. There are many people who simply would not ever get a bus down, I certainly wouldnt so I have no choice but to pay the fare.

Last week I flew to Singapore. I was going to go on bkk air, price was 14,500 rtn. I decided to drive to phuket with the mrs instead of going on my own, tiger air 5,300 baht rtn, I had a night in Phuket the day before the flight as it was early, had a nice meal and took the mrs to singapore with me and after my night in Phuket still ended up spending less than I would have for just 1 ticket for myself on bkk air.

That is evidence of how the island is loosing out to phuket, I spent $ in Phuket that would have been spent in samui had the flights been more reasonable. I wonder just how much Samui is loosing in this fashion.

[mark lamai]

as a business its just too good to lose.

the cream from the samui operation has funded their expansion.

it is obviously very carefully protected,

weren't they last year "forced" to provide a spot to thai airways? what happened to that?

the occassional talk from bangkok pollies about a new airport is quickly snuffed.

i am led to believe the airport is operating at max allowable, 14 flights a day or so,

if so, increasing numbers of arrivals would mean bigger aircraft,

does the new stuff there allow for this, i dunno.

400 baht departure tax when its 50 baht at every other domestic airport!

150 baht bus ride to lamai when lomphraya think 50 baht is enough.

the roads to the airport are a disgrace, their spending stops at the entrance.

a monopoly business will bleed every cent it can, and only change behaviour when it sees its revenue going down.

thats the principle of price increases, push it up as far as you can until revenue suffers.

they have certainly done a great PR job and built a fantastic cash cow for the owners.

in the end its the joe average tourist, above the backpacker but below the once a year big spender, who finds it is just too expensive to use as much as one would like, some folks have to budget.

agree with other poster that the biggest problem with samui is access,

air is expensive, land-sea is dreadfully slow.

"when they built it there were no resorts and deserve their reward" quote approx. = rubbish.

if you knew central group were going to build a huge upmarket resort wouldnt that be almost a guarantee.

anyhow when i first flew to samui in 1990 (approx) there was no shortage of resorts, and chaweng was fun then too!

not that i like phuket much, but imagine the difference if that airport was privately owned from inception,

would it be international? would it be big enough?

personally i think samui has reached it growth limit,

more visitors and more growth will only decrease "livability" and develop the island into gated expensive resorts and a dirty messy unattractive thai city.

ah well, its only an asian island, show me the money.

[highdiver]

no its not a Monopoly as they dont have the only acess to Samui.

ifyou wish to build an airport you can...

-----------------

And what makes this different from any other airline that has exclusivity to any destination??

So how does that not make it a monopoly? Just because you can take a boat instead? Or spend millions building your own airport? Well if that's the case there isn't a single monopoly on the planet.

They have the monopoly on access by air from bangkok then. There are many people who simply would not ever get a bus down, I certainly wouldnt so I have no choice but to pay the fare.

Last week I flew to Singapore. I was going to go on bkk air, price was 14,500 rtn. I decided to drive to phuket with the mrs instead of going on my own, tiger air 5,300 baht rtn, I had a night in Phuket the day before the flight as it was early, had a nice meal and took the mrs to singapore with me and after my night in Phuket still ended up spending less than I would have for just 1 ticket for myself on bkk air.

That is evidence of how the island is loosing out to phuket, I spent $ in Phuket that would have been spent in samui had the flights been more reasonable. I wonder just how much Samui is loosing in this fashion.

now i understand whrer we differ in our views...

you belive that Samui has an airport.... well that where you are wrong Samui does not have an airport. bangkok airways has an airport in Samui.

As such it is a private business and you can use it or not.

when youy fly to phuket or Sinagpore you are using a public airport. but Samui does not have one...

As such bangkok airways airport in Samui is available to those who are willing to pay the rate bangkok airways charges.

[Mid]

does private business have any responsibility for the environmental damage it causes ?

how was the compensation for the original Thai's who live on the island , with regard to diminished quality of life , disbursed ?

I got lots more ..............................

[womble]

No, I believe Bangkok airways has an airport on samui. But I also believe there should be legislation that prevents them raising prices beyond what most would deem reasonable.

In Uk and many other more transparant countries we have quasi autonomous non government organisations that try to protect the consumer. Pricing and monopolies are one thing they often deal with.

Bkk airways having an airport is not just a simple business, a countries infrastucture is of utmost importance and it is important that it isn't used to exploit. Just because a company built it, it doesn't give them the right to use it in ways that are detrimental to the people, that is why western countries have regulatory authorities.

[keepsamuiclean]

"when youy fly to phuket or Sinagpore you are using a public airport. but Samui does not have one...

As such bangkok airways airport in Samui is available to those who are willing to pay the rate bangkok airways charges."

Seems that you finally agree that's a monopoly!!

"how was the compensation for the original Thai's who live on the island , with regard to diminished quality of life , disbursed ?"

Perhaps they got also sleeping pills for free.

[highdiver]

no i did not ignore it as BA is in is in the same packege as them on that route.

No they are charged for using the airport but as those airports owned by the goverment they are subsidised and price controlled which may explain why hethrow is one of the ugliest worst serviced airports in the world.

and while those airlines that use those airports pay landing and gate fees they dont pay for maintaining the whole aiport infesrstructure.

on the financila side as you mentioned them BA is loosing billions.. BKA is profitable. who do you think knows business better.

again you are mssing the finer details. I am impressed by them having a proper built airport that does not sink or crack..

a proper ILS sytem even for such a small airfield. or the beautifull decor and furnitre along with enough staff so you wait in line a resonable time and for 45 minutes. I am impressed by the new fleet the well trained maintenece staff that work by the book. the coridnation and prsetation. i am impressed by the attention to details and the qulity of service.

You should check your facts before posting. BAA is a company and makes over a billion of dollars in yearly profits. Are you suggesting that Samui airport is a proper airport and all theirs are not?

I dont think you understand the differnce between GOP and NOP. BA did make an operational profit of 600 million pounds but how much was the net profit?? how are the owners (share holders)doing are they happy with a 36% decline???

considering that the operating profits are down and make only 7% of the revenue I hardly expect the owners (share holders to be happy... ie less we forget the fantastic 2005 results..

You have put BA in the same group as Easyjet and suggested they are losing billions. Last year BA made 1.2 billion dollars profit. The airlines and operators all manage to make good profits and still offer good deals to passengers.

once agian operating profit is not profit....

In any case, we do not need to look afar for comparison - we need look no further than what BKK Airways charge to other destinations.

Incidentally, you seem easily impressed with a number of things, but I was wondering how you knew that maintenance staff were well trained and do everything by the book. Do you make a point of going in and checking this or have you been reading the in-flight magazine?

Since you are so intersted . I do have an a background in flying and I can assure you the guys in BKA are first class when it comes to ground and maintenece procedures.

At the end of the day as i posted in another reply you seem to not understand that Samui does not have an airport.

Bangkok airways does and its private and they can do what ever they feel like . you and Claude are free to use the ferry..

[highdiver]

does private business have any responsibility for the environmental damage it causes ?

how was the compensation for the original Thai's who live on the island , with regard to diminished quality of life , disbursed ?

I got lots more ..............................

by opening an airport and bringing in richer tourist BKA has made many thais very rich when they sold land for prices that compare with manhatten.

I am sure those Thais would rather not have an airport or tourist and just go on fisshing and coconut colecting.

[keepsamuiclean]

And I clearly promise now that I will not use Bangkok Airways again. I'll take the ferry!

[womble]

does private business have any responsibility for the environmental damage it causes ?

how was the compensation for the original Thai's who live on the island , with regard to diminished quality of life , disbursed ?

I got lots more ..............................

by opening an airport and bringing in richer tourist BKA has made many thais very rich when they sold land for prices that compare with manhatten.

I am sure those Thais would rather not have an airport or tourist and just go on fisshing and coconut colecting.

Maybe but i'm sure they didn't open the airport to make the locals rich............

[highdiver]

No, I believe Bangkok airways has an airport on samui. But I also believe there should be legislation that prevents them raising prices beyond what most would deem reasonable.

well done . now that we established that ts a prive air port. you would like to see it legistlated and contorlled.

that is a nice way of thinking .... so a business man takes a chance invest efforts and a great deal of capital on making something that was not there before and if he does realy. relay well... and is very lucky... then we need to legistlate and controll his business..

that surelly would incoureage invesotrs.

In Uk and many other more transparant countries we have quasi autonomous non government organisations that try to protect the consumer. Pricing and monopolies are one thing they often deal with.

once again Monopoly is when you are the only one that can do it .... once again if the Thai govermant built an airport and gave exclusivity to only one airline it would be a monopoly and haence controlled by the laws applicable to a monopoly ... once again Samui is open for any investor that wishes to open an airport... so where are they.

Bkk airways having an airport is not just a simple business, a countries infrastucture is of utmost importance and it is important that it isn't used to exploit. Just because a company built it, it doesn't give them the right to use it in ways that are detrimental to the people, that is why western countries have regulatory authorities.

rubbish ... there are over 3000 private aiports in the USA only, and they are totaly controleed by the owners..

when thailand or Samui wishes to build an airport in Samui they can do so. and any private business is made to exploit financial opertunity .

why are you so anti BKA . it is a private business.

[highdiver]

does private business have any responsibility for the environmental damage it causes ?

how was the compensation for the original Thai's who live on the island , with regard to diminished quality of life , disbursed ?

I got lots more ..............................

by opening an airport and bringing in richer tourist BKA has made many thais very rich when they sold land for prices that compare with manhatten.

I am sure those Thais would rather not have an airport or tourist and just go on fisshing and coconut colecting.

Maybe but i'm sure they didn't open the airport to make the locals rich............

no but mid was debating that the loclas have lost due to that... which is not the case.

[Mid]

by opening an airport and bringing in richer tourist BKA has made many thais very rich when they sold land for prices that compare with manhatten.

I am sure those Thais would rather not have an airport or tourist and just go on fisshing and coconut colecting.

land owners , yes

the rest ??

[highdiver]

by opening an airport and bringing in richer tourist BKA has made many thais very rich when they sold land for prices that compare with manhatten.

I am sure those Thais would rather not have an airport or tourist and just go on fisshing and coconut colecting.

land owners , yes

the rest ??

lets see ... since BKA opened shop tourist on the island has reached over 1 million per year. hotels and other jbs have opened up .. the avreage salary in samui is higer and there is a general feeling of ongoing devopment.

mmmmm..... yes.. every one benefited.

[chinthee]

My understanding of the Samui land ownership issue is not great, and I'm sure someone will correct me, but I was told that much of the prime land that has been developed on the island is by Bangkok wealthy interests. I was told that the locals sold out long ago to the big Bangkok families. If so, I guess you could argue that yes, the original land owners benefited, but the ones making the big bucks on property are the Bangkok families/corporations.

Sorry if this is wrong info.

[highdiver]

My understanding of the Samui land ownership issue is not great, and I'm sure someone will correct me, but I was told that much of the prime land that has been developed on the island is by Bangkok wealthy interests. I was told that the locals sold out long ago to the big Bangkok families. If so, I guess you could argue that yes, the original land owners benefited, but the ones making the big bucks on property are the Bangkok families/corporations.

Sorry if this is wrong info.

definatly wrong!!!

the bg wigs from bangkok are only buying in the last few years. most of the buyers beofre that were farrangs that understood what the potential was once an airport is opened.