Aot: Passengers May Pay Noise Compensation

[onethailand]

Airports of Thailand (AoT) is considering collecting a special fee from passengers and airlines using Suvarnabhumi airport to compensate residents affected by aircraft noise.

The AoT board, led by assistant army chief Saprang Kalayanamitr, yesterday discussed sources of funding for the compensation and came up with an idea used in Australia and Japan, where a special fee is collected from those who cause the noise pollution. Passengers and airline operators who use the airport would be charged the fee, said AoT board spokesman Chirmsak Pinthong.

The board has asked AoT to study details of the proposal and set a suitable rate before submitting its findings to the board before the end of next month. If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Transport Ministry, which will forward it for cabinet approval no later than November, he said.

''The proposed special fee is collected in several countries. This is a good thing as it will create a good moral sense. This is fair and better than using taxpayer money or AoT coffers [to compensate affected residents],'' he said.

He maintained that AoT was willing to help all affected residents. The authority would follow a cabinet resolution and the AoT board's resolution on compensation payments, he said.

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

Hmm, what a novel idea....

NOT. Is it our fault they moved the airport there? What about all the people living in the Don Muang area, did they ever get compensation for noise?

AOT can solve this one by themselves, collecting additional passenger surcharges is NOT on.

[soundman]

This is rich!

AOT - Plain English - "Its not our fault we signed a bad deal. We have friends in high places, somebody else can pay."

Local Residents - Plain English - "We bought this land because we knew we could extort the new airport."

Considering the land has been earmarked for an airport for over fifty years, I can't believe the govt. (junta ) is going to give in to public pressure.

Its all about votes & power in Thailand. Keep the residents happy so the govt. (junta ) can stay in the good books in the public eye & who cares about what our international arrivals think.

Soundman.

[chinthee]

Hmm. wonder if they'll try to sneak it into ticket prices with nobody noticing?

[samran]

actually, it is a well known concept in economic circles to compensate people for the deperication of the land values and noise polution, say in the scenario where flight paths are changed or an airport is expanded. It is actually a very fair proceedure, to make people no worse off than they otherwise would have been.

Having said that, the people who bought land around the airport while it was being built are not really qualified for this compensation. But, as others have said, they are extorting the government. The only people who really should get the dosh are long term residents.

[onethailand]

actually, it is a well known concept in economic circles to compensate people for the deperication of the land values and noise polution, say in the scenario where flight paths are changed or an airport is expanded. It is actually a very fair proceedure, to make people no worse off than they otherwise would have been.

Having said that, the people who bought land around the airport while it was being built are not really qualified for this compensation. But, as others have said, they are extorting the government. The only people who really should get the dosh are long term residents.

I have no argument with compensating those who live around the airport, especially if they have held land there for quite some time. But I do not agree that the passengers should fund this compensation, particularly after the fact. The AoT knew that it would have to pay compensation many years ago. The income from rental, landing fees, etc. should be more than enough to take care of the compensatory payments. In addition, they already increased the departure tax.

In summary - compensate the residents out of AoT's own pockets.

Edited September 7, 2007 by onethailand

[samran]

users of the airport should pay those affected. They are responsible for the noise. User/abuser pays.

to charge a taxpayer sitting in Nongkhai for noise caused by a frequent traveller is inequitable.

[Payboy]

why just stop at the passengers?

shouldn't every party that benefits from the airport contribute as well? taxi mafia, duty free monopoly, hotel monopoly, cargo companies, etc etc

[soundman]

actually, it is a well known concept in economic circles to compensate people for the deperication of the land values and noise polution, say in the scenario where flight paths are changed or an airport is expanded. It is actually a very fair proceedure, to make people no worse off than they otherwise would have been.

Having said that, the people who bought land around the airport while it was being built are not really qualified for this compensation. But, as others have said, they are extorting the government. The only people who really should get the dosh are long term residents.

Absolutley. Couldn't agree more.

However, with the plans for the airport being around for fifty years or more, I suspect there would be very few of the original residents around.

Everybody who has subsequently purchased land should (in theory) be aware that they are buying into in area where there will covered with noise pollution.

Cheers.

[samran]

why just stop at the passengers?

shouldn't every party that benefits from the airport contribute as well? taxi mafia, duty free monopoly, hotel monopoly, cargo companies, etc etc

cause none of them are jumping into a roaring 747.

[onethailand]

users of the airport should pay those affected. They are responsible for the noise. User/abuser pays.

to charge a taxpayer sitting in Nongkhai for noise caused by a frequent traveller is inequitable.

I think you've missed my point. Users are already paying extra in the form of an increased departure tax. Furthermore, the users did not determine where the airport would be located, nor did they make any decision to create more noise in the area. In fact they have no choice - they have to go where the planes are.

Of course you can't charge someone in Nongkhai for this - and I made no suggestion that there should be any other form of taxation. The AoT alone should be responsible for shouldering the burden of compensation payments.

Had they made this decision many years ago I don't think I would've argued - but deciding to do so after the airport is opened is tantamount to finding a way to screw people out of more money.

[soundman]

users of the airport should pay those affected. They are responsible for the noise. User/abuser pays.

to charge a taxpayer sitting in Nongkhai for noise caused by a frequent traveller is inequitable.

I think you've missed my point. Users are already paying extra in the form of an increased departure tax. Furthermore, the users did not determine where the airport would be located, nor did they make any decision to create more noise in the area. In fact they have no choice - they have to go where the planes are.

Of course you can't charge someone in Nongkhai for this - and I made no suggestion that there should be any other form of taxation. The AoT alone should be responsible for shouldering the burden of compensation payments.

Had they made this decision many years ago I don't think I would've argued - but deciding to do so after the airport is opened is tantamount to finding a way to screw people out of more money.

Maybe you were right Samran.

Should have had two international airports in Bkk, run by two seperate companies so they could compete with each other & benifit those who decide to use those particular ports of entry and exit into & out of Thailand.

Edited September 7, 2007 by soundman

[samran]

users of the airport should pay those affected. They are responsible for the noise. User/abuser pays.

to charge a taxpayer sitting in Nongkhai for noise caused by a frequent traveller is inequitable.

I think you've missed my point. Users are already paying extra in the form of an increased departure tax. Furthermore, the users did not determine where the airport would be located, nor did they make any decision to create more noise in the area. In fact they have no choice - they have to go where the planes are.

Of course you can't charge someone in Nongkhai for this - and I made no suggestion that there should be any other form of taxation. The AoT alone should be responsible for shouldering the burden of compensation payments.

Had they made this decision many years ago I don't think I would've argued - but deciding to do so after the airport is opened is tantamount to finding a way to screw people out of more money.

one small problemo is that AOT is 70% owned by the Thai government. When you say AOT should pay for it out of their own pockets you are ultimately saying that that the taxpayer should given that any dividend that AOT pays mostly goes to the government anyway.

But, I must admit, with airports, I'm all for user pays. The last thing I want to foster is the sense of corporate entitlement anymore than it already exists here.

[samran]

Maybe you were right Samran.

Should have had two international airports in Bkk, run by two seperate companies so they could compete with each other & benifit those who decide to use those particular ports of entry and exit into & out of Thailand.

We Melbournians are always right, Soundman....

[Bpraim1]

Just looks to me like some more good old Thai logic.

To think that AOT believes that they can become a regional hub at this rate.

Is just about a funny as watching the Junta chase MR.Thaksin around.

[Payboy]

why just stop at the passengers?

shouldn't every party that benefits from the airport contribute as well? taxi mafia, duty free monopoly, hotel monopoly, cargo companies, etc etc

cause none of them are jumping into a roaring 747.

yes, but their profits depend on those roaring 747's...and they're there because the airport is...

[samran]

why just stop at the passengers?

shouldn't every party that benefits from the airport contribute as well? taxi mafia, duty free monopoly, hotel monopoly, cargo companies, etc etc

cause none of them are jumping into a roaring 747.

yes, but their profits depend on those roaring 747's...and they're there because the airport is...

Yes, they benefit from the noise, so in theory, yes, they should be responsible for some of the compensation. But so does the hotels where these people stay, as does a random tuk-tuk driver who got luck and took them around town all day on the third day of the trip.

So where are you supposed to draw the line? Who is going to be the one who calculates the benefit that the taxi-drivers get over and above the income that they would otherwise get if there wasn't an airport. Out of this benefit, what % of that benefit directly related to that 747 landing? How do you ensure one taxi driver doesn't overpay on his contribution as he only visits the airport once a week, versus his mate who is there every day?

What is the cost of collecting this fee from all the disparate beneficiaries versus the revenues that you collect from them. Is it worth it?

Look, i know I'm being a smart arse and splitting hairs, but it is a questoin that needs to be asked. You maybe right and that some beneficiaries could be charged (ie King power), but it may not be worth the time, money and effort to charge the taxi drivers. I'm not sure

But, I'd bet that alot more sophisticated people than me who run world class airports have asked the question, and in 90% of cases they've come to the conculsion that is most cost effective just to charge the traveller, and to be done with it.

[Payboy]

why just stop at the passengers?

shouldn't every party that benefits from the airport contribute as well? taxi mafia, duty free monopoly, hotel monopoly, cargo companies, etc etc

cause none of them are jumping into a roaring 747.

yes, but their profits depend on those roaring 747's...and they're there because the airport is...

Yes, they benefit from the noise, so in theory, yes, they should be responsible for some of the compensation. But so does the hotels where these people stay, as does a random tuk-tuk driver who got luck and took them around town all day on the third day of the trip.

So where are you supposed to draw the line? Who is going to be the one who calculates the benefit that the taxi-drivers get over and above the income that they would otherwise get if there wasn't an airport. Out of this benefit, what % of that benefit directly related to that 747 landing? How do you ensure one taxi driver doesn't overpay on his contribution as he only visits the airport once a week, versus his mate who is there every day?

What is the cost of collecting this fee from all the disparate beneficiaries versus the revenues that you collect from them. Is it worth it?

Look, i know I'm being a smart arse and splitting hairs, but it is a questoin that needs to be asked. You maybe right and that some beneficiaries could be charged (ie King power), but it may not be worth the time, money and effort to charge the taxi drivers. I'm not sure

But, I'd bet that alot more sophisticated people than me who run world class airports have asked the question, and in 90% of cases they've come to the conculsion that is most cost effective just to charge the traveller, and to be done with it.

your observation has merits - but shouldn't the obligation of the passenger end with the airport tax - otherwise bkk is going to have one of the highest passenger service charge in the world.

and to split more hairs - then should passengers flying in the much noisy older aircraft pay the same surcharge as those flying in the quiet newer models?

[samran]

and to split more hairs - then should passengers flying in the much noisy older aircraft pay the same surcharge as those flying in the quiet newer models?

typically I beleive this is possible. Bit like a toll price list for an express way (eg larger trucks cause more wear and tear get charged more). Some airports outright ban certain planes cause they are too noisy.

[onethailand]

The users are already paying more. Increased departure tax, 1.6 billion baht per year. Increased landing fees for airlines I can assure you has resulted in higher fares. Retail prices of anything sold in the airport has gone up because undoubtedly the AoT is charging double in rental fees - not to mention the huge increase in retail space available.

The AoT knew they would have to pay compensation - undoubtedly they took this into account many years ago. Are they now admitting they don't know how to count, or, like I said, are they looking for another way to screw people? Could they not have foreseen this earlier and just increased the passenger tax by 300 baht instead of 200 baht, or are they really that stupid?

The BTS and the MRTA both were refused permission to increase fares based on "unexpectedly low" adoption of the system in the early days. How is the AoT any different? It matters not that they are 70% government owned - they have already taxed the citizens anyhow and it makes zero difference to the taxpayer if the AoT shoulders the burden that they have been preparing for over the years.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. In my opinion there is absolutely no justification for the AoT's current stance.

[samran]

The AoT knew they would have to pay compensation - undoubtedly they took this into account many years ago. Are they now admitting they don't know how to count, or, like I said, are they looking for another way to screw people? Could they not have foreseen this earlier and just increased the passenger tax by 300 baht instead of 200 baht, or are they really that stupid?

The PSC is designed to pay for the airport and use of the facilities. The PSC determined by the former Minister of Transport, based on advice from the Department of Aviation, which in turn came from the basis of advice of PWC Australia and Merril Lynch out of HK (normal disclaimers on their advice here....). Given the, shall I say, 'accelerated' timetable for opening the airport by the former administration, these two companies did a superb job in coming up with a formula to determine pricing an tarriffs at the airport, despite the fact that they were asked to do a 2-3 year job in the space of about 6 months, with no public consultation allowed in the schedual. They were aware of the constraints, and advised the government at the time that not all avenues had been explored yet, and their advice was tendered on that basis.

So no, they are not looking for another way to screw people. The PSC, like all airport charges, is up for review in the next year or two. If they do it properly, submissions to government will be allowed this time, to get the views of all affected people, and so that the PSC can be adjusted accordingly....and this time...with out the rush. So don't blame AOT. They were pressured to open the airport, and we left with a mess to clean up....

[onethailand]

The PSC is designed to pay for the airport and use of the facilities. The PSC determined by the former Minister of Transport, based on advice from the Department of Aviation, which in turn came from the basis of advice of PWC Australia and Merril Lynch out of HK (normal disclaimers on their advice here....). Given the, shall I say, 'accelerated' timetable for opening the airport by the former administration, these two companies did a superb job in coming up with a formula to determine pricing an tarriffs at the airport, despite the fact that they were asked to do a 2-3 year job in the space of about 6 months, with no public consultation allowed in the schedual. They were aware of the constraints, and advised the government at the time that not all avenues had been explored yet, and their advice was tendered on that basis.

So no, they are not looking for another way to screw people. The PSC, like all airport charges, is up for review in the next year or two. If they do it properly, submissions to government will be allowed this time, to get the views of all affected people, and so that the PSC can be adjusted accordingly....and this time...with out the rush. So don't blame AOT. They were pressured to open the airport, and we left with a mess to clean up....

I'll partially agree with that - they were rushed into opening, no doubt. But that should have no bearing on the fact that they have been considering the compensation issue for many years. This is hardly a factor which qualifies as an avenue which had not been explored yet.

I still favor the "screw people" angle - they are, after all, a monopoly, and they know that people probably aren't going to stop using the airport because they raised the fees/taxes. It's bad enough that Thailand already has one of the highest departure taxes in the world. Hong Kong charges HK$120 (US$15), Singapore charges S$15 (US$11), Narita 2000 yen (US$18), South Korea 9000 Won (US$8), the US $26.80, Australia A$27 (US$14)... Thailand 700 baht (US$21) - the only country I could find with a higher departure tax (other than the US) was the UK - which is crazy, up to 80 pounds for long haul!

Edited September 7, 2007 by onethailand

[samran]

trust me, with the time frame, and the lack of resources devoted to doing it properly, it makes sense to me that an issue like this falls through the cracks, especially when you make the broad assumption that people who bought into the area, especially during the phase where the project was confirmed (ie the majority), should have though about the issues themselves.

No, for me, this is more a case of a "what is the government going to do for me, now that I made a bad decision" which is not only common here, but in most places in the world.

[onethailand]

No, for me, this is more a case of a "what is the government going to do for me, now that I made a bad decision" which is not only common here, but in most places in the world.

And in response... "how the hel_l do we get out of this mess we've gotten into? I know... make the unsuspecting passengers pay for it, after all they don't have any choice..."

You're right. Happens everywhere. But doesn't mean we should be expected to take it... LOL...

[samran]

No, for me, this is more a case of a "what is the government going to do for me, now that I made a bad decision" which is not only common here, but in most places in the world.

And in response... "how the hel_l do we get out of this mess we've gotten into? I know... make the unsuspecting passengers pay for it, after all they don't have any choice..."

You're right. Happens everywhere. But doesn't mean we should be expected to take it... LOL...

If it was me, I'd tell the local residents who bought land anytime after the confirmation of fiancing and construction to go shove it. But that won't happen. No government likes to be seen as being confrontational here.

[cdnvic]

and to split more hairs - then should passengers flying in the much noisy older aircraft pay the same surcharge as those flying in the quiet newer models?

typically I beleive this is possible. Bit like a toll price list for an express way (eg larger trucks cause more wear and tear get charged more). Some airports outright ban certain planes cause they are too noisy.

That won't happen because the noisiest regular flights to and from the airport would likely be the ancient jumbos flown by some Thai airlines, and there's no way they would ever charge the Thai airlines more than the the foreign ones with their quieter Airbuses and newer Boeings.

[Bpraim1]

Let's just face it straight up.

The next flight we take we will be paying more!