From today's Bangkok Post ,a tax may be levied on users of Suvarabhumi to compensate those suffering from airport noise !

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/07Sep2007_news04.php

Yeah ,that would be right,there will be a wave of dissent ,personally I will boycott & use Don Muang

Wiley Coyote

Isnt a 700Bht tax already levied on all international users?

How exactly would the resident be compensated? would it be in a similar fashion as to when you dink a taxi on the rear bumper and give him B300 for the repair but still see him driving around with the same dink 2 years later?

I can't understand this logic. How long will the compensation last for these residents? Until they have found housing a suitable distance away from the pesky airport? Or will it go on forever like the pesky 'dink'?

I understand the effects of a noisy airport and unnecessary travel but in the bigger picture, am I supposed to sail back to the UK once a year for visa renewal or would the Thai government like to give me a better deal on my visa, perhaps local renewal once a year, then I'd never need to use the airport, thus saving all that naughty noise pollution!

Isnt a 700Bht tax already levied on all international users?

Naw, thats barely enough to cover the overpaid salaries of the officials running the airport. Besides they need a lot of money to pay for the self promo of themselves on TV, newspapers, magazines etc..

could it be a way of raising money for the airport if they lose the duty free shops

From today's Bangkok Post ,a tax may be levied on users of Suvarabhumi to compensate those suffering from airport noise !

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/07Sep2007_news04.php

Yeah ,that would be right,there will be a wave of dissent ,personally I will boycott & use Don Muang

Wiley Coyote

I read about it, but I don't understand the logic at all.

Tourist didn't pick up the location.

When AOT pick up the location, and engineer about build-out, aren't they supposed to consider noise level and compensation ?

Why are tourist responsible for failed engineering/project ?

If it is 10 or 20 years old, and they need to fix something, I can understand that there may be some need to cover it.

But it was started from beginning, so why are tourists responsible for the cost?

If I have to pay for this kind of thing, I rather use other airport or travel to other countries...

HI

I am all for giving them compensation providing they fulfill certain criteria..........

1) They have lived in their current accommodation since prior to commencement of building work.

2) They or their immediate family do not derive an income/living from the airport.

3) They have never used the airport for a flight for themselves or immediate family.

Subject to meeting these terms I feel they should be entitled to recompense. Anyone not meeting this criteria is purely an opportunist.

TBWG

April fools come early???

HI

I am all for giving them compensation providing they fulfill certain criteria..........

1) They have lived in their current accommodation since prior to commencement of building work.

2) They or their immediate family do not derive an income/living from the airport.

3) They have never used the airport for a flight for themselves or immediate family.

Subject to meeting these terms I feel they should be entitled to recompense. Anyone not meeting this criteria is purely an opportunist.

TBWG

I wouldn't be as generous with your first point: "They have lived in their current accommodation since public announcement of intent to build the airport at the current site." An opportunist could easily buy and build after the initial announcement, but before construction work began.

From today's Bangkok Post ,a tax may be levied on users of Suvarabhumi to compensate those suffering from airport noise !

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/07Sep2007_news04.php

Yeah ,that would be right,there will be a wave of dissent ,personally I will boycott & use Don Muang

Wiley Coyote

Did none of these people bother to realise at the time of purchase that their houses were not going to be right next to the airport? They should be going after the constructors, but of course, in Thailand that isn't feasible, so they are going after the government. It would be interesting to know what they paid in the first place since it was probably extremely cheap on the basis of proximity to new airport. Any compensation for companies who lost business due to move from DM?

What odds a construction company or AOT to buy the houses at rock bottom and turn the moobhans into more shopping?

As long as any "tax" goes to AOT to help boost thier bottom line, as a shareholder, I am all infavor.

Yeah. That's right. That tax money is gonna go STRAIGHT to the house owners for compensation. Gotta go, just saw a pig flying over a blue moon!!

a lot of the realizations and suggestions in this thread stem from western proclivities toward logic and sensibleness - as if AOT (or any other gov't agency people) have such concerns.

We're talking about affairs in Thailand ....logic and sensibleness don't show their fuzzy heads here. At best, they're way way down the priority list - somewhere between #29 and #47.

a lot of the realizations and suggestions in this thread stem from western proclivities toward logic and sensibleness - as if AOT (or any other gov't agency people) have such concerns.

We're talking about affairs in Thailand ....logic and sensibleness don't show their fuzzy heads here. At best, they're way way down the priority list - somewhere between #29 and #47.

the process for coming up with the PSC was done by westerners.

Read all about it here.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...141394&st=0