IATA Wants Single Airport For Bangkok

[NanLaew]

These cities mentioned with 'legacy' multiple airports only have them because they were ORIGINALLY planned and built when the urban conurbations between them were a lot smaller, roads and railways were less congested and air travel generally involved less flights with smaller planes and fewer passengers. Now that London/Berlin/New York have grown immensely, these 'legacy' airports are in constant need of refurbishment and redesign to handle larger aircraft and higher volumes of passengers and baggage. These redesigns are time consuming and expensive and mostly inconvenience the traveler. Paris needs two airports solely because they never designed CDG for the expansion the industry has witnessed... and the French are hopeless at anything apart from food and wine. Even my European favourite at Schiphol appears to be getting 'smaller' as more and more of their wide-open internal 'boulevards' are eaten up by the need for internet kiosks, fast-food outlets and other modern trappings that didn't exist 20-odd years ago.

How anyone can hold up the London airport 'system' as plausible argument for a second full-service airport in Bangkok is beyond me. Apart from the outstanding London City airport, the other choices are either too far away, under-served, overloaded and otherwise inefficient and doomed by the M25 and mostly piss-poor railway access.

Suvarnabhumi has room for the expansion that is required to adapt to growing international and domestic travel demands. It's also on the 'wrong side' of a constantly growing Bangkok to be considered as a viable cargo hub. As others have pointed out, air cargo via passenger aircraft is very significant and most all the major customs brokerages, warehousing, transportation and goods manufacturing is down the Eastern seaboard, much closer to BKK than DMK.

However, since it took several administrations several decades (and several million dollars) before anyone had the balls to commit to a new international airport at 'Nong Nu Hao', I can't see this irrelevant 'debate' on the pros and cons of resurrecting Don Muang being resolved any time soon. Unless the new advisor to the Cambodian government has anything to do with it of course. Then the military (Air Force) will once again have to accept that their primary function here is to protect the nations air space and not pad their bank accounts with passenger taxes, commercial aircraft landing fees, duty free rip-offs, cargo handling charges and exorbitant rental rates for old and crappy commercial spaces.

RIP Don Muang

Edited November 14, 2009 by NanLaew

[bubba]

Someone said it earlier. Let the customers and the market decide. And right now, many have decided that they prefer Don Muang.

Nok Air operates exclusively out of DMK, and they are back in the black. Every flight that I have taken on Nok recently has been nearly full. Why? Simply put, DMK is much more convenient and efficient for domestic flights. Far faster and easier to get in and out of, and it's two minutes to the gate from the checkin counter, rather that that nearly 1 km stroll in Suvarnabhumi if you get the gate at the far end of domestic. Baggage service is faster. Even aircraft taxi time is shorter, and I can't remember being number five for takeoff or holding short for arriving traffic, which is often the case at SVB. Add more flights to SVB, and it gets even slower.

[chiang mai]

Someone said it earlier. Let the customers and the market decide. And right now, many have decided that they prefer Don Muang.

Nok Air operates exclusively out of DMK, and they are back in the black. Every flight that I have taken on Nok recently has been nearly full. Why? Simply put, DMK is much more convenient and efficient for domestic flights. Far faster and easier to get in and out of, and it's two minutes to the gate from the checkin counter, rather that that nearly 1 km stroll in Suvarnabhumi if you get the gate at the far end of domestic. Baggage service is faster. Even aircraft taxi time is shorter, and I can't remember being number five for takeoff or holding short for arriving traffic, which is often the case at SVB. Add more flights to SVB, and it gets even slower.

I think you'll find that landing/take off costs are much lower at DM than at Swampy simply because it's an older and less costly airport. That factor will certainly have helped Nok Air's profitability as has the fact that they can consolidate their entire operation into a single airport rather than having to split it between two, as was the case with Thai Airways for a while. But the fact remains that it's the customer and competition that suffers from having two airports offering nearly identical services - very few people are going to arrive at Swampy off a long haul flight and then decide it's a good idea to transit to DM to take an internal flight, albeit a cheaper one, when there are easier options available to them at Swampy.

[bubba]

Someone said it earlier. Let the customers and the market decide. And right now, many have decided that they prefer Don Muang.

Nok Air operates exclusively out of DMK, and they are back in the black. Every flight that I have taken on Nok recently has been nearly full. Why? Simply put, DMK is much more convenient and efficient for domestic flights. Far faster and easier to get in and out of, and it's two minutes to the gate from the checkin counter, rather that that nearly 1 km stroll in Suvarnabhumi if you get the gate at the far end of domestic. Baggage service is faster. Even aircraft taxi time is shorter, and I can't remember being number five for takeoff or holding short for arriving traffic, which is often the case at SVB. Add more flights to SVB, and it gets even slower.

I think you'll find that landing/take off costs are much lower at DM than at Swampy simply because it's an older and less costly airport. That factor will certainly have helped Nok Air's profitability as has the fact that they can consolidate their entire operation into a single airport rather than having to split it between two, as was the case with Thai Airways for a while. But the fact remains that it's the customer and competition that suffers from having two airports offering nearly identical services - very few people are going to arrive at Swampy off a long haul flight and then decide it's a good idea to transit to DM to take an internal flight, albeit a cheaper one, when there are easier options available to them at Swampy.

True, and I probably wouldn't go over to DMK if I was arriving at SVB. But you have to consider that the great majority of domestic passengers are people who live here. And added to that are the tourists who are already in Bangkok and are taking a domestic flight to Phuket or Chiang Mai or wherever. Should the government close DMK and deny that choice to accommodate more flights for the minority of passengers arriving on connecting international flights? They currently have plenty of choices at SVK.

I still say let the market and consumers decide.

[gregb]

I don't care what they say. Swampy is a miserable excuse for an airport.

I would happily pay more to fly in and out of Don Muang rather than that abomination in Cobra Swamp.

I agree completely. Open up both of them and let the people decide. I think what they are really afraid of is that if there were option, all the airlines would migrate back to DMK and their mutli billion baht corruption fest would be left rusting amidst its cracking runways.

[chiang mai]

This is a really funny thread, everyone says let the people and commercial forces decide and I agree with that entirely, a number of people also seem to want to keep DM open. But when asked how how they would organise traffic between Swampy and DM, nobody seems prepared to take a stab at the best solution! Go ask London they say, well, London's set up is not quite the same as Bangkok, as has already been pointed out. Leave it up to the government and they will find an answer and doubtless some people will not be satisfied with it, why, because there is no good answer to the problem but folks don't seem interested in thinking through the options, instead it's easier to fall back on the old lines of, I like DM, Swampy's no good, DM's near to my house - perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

[chiang mai]

This is a really funny thread, everyone says let the people and commercial forces decide and I agree with that entirely, a number of people also seem to want to keep DM open. But when asked how how they would organise traffic between Swampy and DM, nobody seems prepared to take a stab at the best solution! Go ask London they say, well, London's set up is not quite the same as Bangkok, as has already been pointed out. Leave it up to the government and they will find an answer and doubtless some people will not be satisfied with it, why, because there is no good answer to the problem but folks don't seem interested in thinking through the options, instead it's easier to fall back on the old lines of, I like DM, Swampy's no good, DM's near to my house - perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

[FatherF]

DM for Cargo & Internal flights, Swampy for all International flights, an underground rail link between the two, incorporating a freight & Passenger service. Customs would only be required at Swampy, this would also release more slots for both airports, thus allowing more travelers/freight etc. Too easy?

I have dealt (& still do) with IATA, and IMHO are a bunch of halfwits!

FF

[bubba]

This is a really funny thread, everyone says let the people and commercial forces decide and I agree with that entirely, a number of people also seem to want to keep DM open. But when asked how how they would organise traffic between Swampy and DM, nobody seems prepared to take a stab at the best solution! Go ask London they say, well, London's set up is not quite the same as Bangkok, as has already been pointed out. Leave it up to the government and they will find an answer and doubtless some people will not be satisfied with it, why, because there is no good answer to the problem but folks don't seem interested in thinking through the options, instead it's easier to fall back on the old lines of, I like DM, Swampy's no good, DM's near to my house - perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

The way it is now, I don't think there is a lot of transit between DMK and SVB. Between Thai and Air Asia, there are plenty of domestic flights to service incoming incoming international flights. And passengers connecting onward to domestic flights from international flights are a fraction of the total domestic passenger load.

Yes, having two airports is viable. Leave it to the passengers and market to decide. If you don't want to make a transit over to DMK after arriving at SVB, just book a flight on TG or Air Asia for your domestic flight. Even if you don't, it's still a lot faster, cheaper and easier than transits that you might find in other multi-airport cities. Try Pudong to Hongqiao (at least until they get the Maglev running), Newark to JFK, Oakland to SFO. Or how about Heathrow to Gatwick? The bus for that transit will set you back about 1200 baht and could more than 90 minutes.

[bubba]

DM for Cargo & Internal flights, Swampy for all International flights, an underground rail link between the two, incorporating a freight & Passenger service. Customs would only be required at Swampy, this would also release more slots for both airports, thus allowing more travelers/freight etc. Too easy?

I have dealt (& still do) with IATA, and IMHO are a bunch of halfwits!

FF

Underground rain link between DMK and SVB? Too easy? Piece of cake, and 35 kms of tunneling would be cheap as well.

[gregb]

perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

You have supplied absolutely no supporting evidence to back up your conviction there would be a problem. Let the airlines decide where they want to operate out of. Air Asia would almost certainly set up shop at DMK. They may or may not run parallel flights out of Swampy if they could make money at it. Otherwise, who cares? Let people who want to fly out of Swampy fly TG.

I would never take ANYTHING that didn't fly out of DMK if I could get around it, therefore there would be no transit issue. If it cost slightly more at DMK, so be it. I'd pay, and so would many others. The whole thing about not being able to transit back and forth is rubbish. The problem is corruption pure and simple. There is too much money at stake here, and no government has ever considered the people when making their decisions. You really are naive if you believe anyone thought of what is best for the people of Thailand.

Leave both airports open to all flights, except restrict cargo to operating out of Suvharnabhumi, since they don't seem to mind it. No need to provide transport between the 2, except for shuttle buses. It's OK if they take 90 minutes during traffic. Other cities have the same problem, and they survive.

Problem solved. The market will eventually arrive at a distribution of traffic that optimizes resources and best meets customer demand. The true fear is, that distribution will be 100% utilization at DMK, and 20% at that new monstrosity nobody wants.

Please explain exactly why this wouldn't work if you are going to say the idea is so unthinkable. And don't use the excuse it isn't convenient for passengers. Most people would have absolutely no problem with it. If you don't want to transfer between airports, pay the fees to use an airline that files into the airport you want. Otherwise, if cost is your main concern and you want to split airports, allow the time to do this. It is a very small number of people who would transfer at Bangkok between 2 international flights and couldn't connect inside 1 airport. And honestly, I don't really care about those people. That's what Changi is for.

[chiang mai]

DM for Cargo & Internal flights, Swampy for all International flights, an underground rail link between the two, incorporating a freight & Passenger service. Customs would only be required at Swampy, this would also release more slots for both airports, thus allowing more travelers/freight etc. Too easy?

I have dealt (& still do) with IATA, and IMHO are a bunch of halfwits!

FF

Underground rain link between DMK and SVB? Too easy? Piece of cake, and 35 kms of tunneling would be cheap as well.

I humbly bestow upon you the annual Chiang Mai Awareness Award for 2009, typically given to the poster providing the most unique and unworkable solution to a particular problem.

[chiang mai]

perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

You have supplied absolutely no supporting evidence to back up your conviction there would be a problem. Let the airlines decide where they want to operate out of. Air Asia would almost certainly set up shop at DMK. They may or may not run parallel flights out of Swampy if they could make money at it. Otherwise, who cares? Let people who want to fly out of Swampy fly TG.

I would never take ANYTHING that didn't fly out of DMK if I could get around it, therefore there would be no transit issue. If it cost slightly more at DMK, so be it. I'd pay, and so would many others. The whole thing about not being able to transit back and forth is rubbish. The problem is corruption pure and simple. There is too much money at stake here, and no government has ever considered the people when making their decisions. You really are naive if you believe anyone thought of what is best for the people of Thailand.

Leave both airports open to all flights, except restrict cargo to operating out of Suvharnabhumi, since they don't seem to mind it. No need to provide transport between the 2, except for shuttle buses. It's OK if they take 90 minutes during traffic. Other cities have the same problem, and they survive.

Problem solved. The market will eventually arrive at a distribution of traffic that optimizes resources and best meets customer demand. The true fear is, that distribution will be 100% utilization at DMK, and 20% at that new monstrosity nobody wants.

Please explain exactly why this wouldn't work if you are going to say the idea is so unthinkable. And don't use the excuse it isn't convenient for passengers. Most people would have absolutely no problem with it. If you don't want to transfer between airports, pay the fees to use an airline that files into the airport you want. Otherwise, if cost is your main concern and you want to split airports, allow the time to do this. It is a very small number of people who would transfer at Bangkok between 2 international flights and couldn't connect inside 1 airport. And honestly, I don't really care about those people. That's what Changi is for.

Government: Airlines listen up, you have a choice of flying from Swampy or DM, which one do you want, you choose.

Airlines: er, we don't know, why don't we let the consumer decide over time?

Government: Hmm, well, recativation costs of the old airport will be substantial so we'd kind of like to know what you have in mind, before we spend that money!

Airlines: Where's Thai Airways flying from?

Government: We don't know but we think they might chose Swampy because it's connected to a modern highway infrastructure that provides passenger delivery in all directions, they have business expansion space at Swampy and it is modern and new, thus providing a 2010 image of Thailand to incoming passengers.

Airlines: Will costs be cheaper at DM?

Government: Yes of course, it's much smaller and much older.

Airlines: What help will you provide our airline in allowing incoming passengers to get to DM if we relocate there?

Government: we'll provide an hourly shuttle bus service and put the idea of a rail link/subway service into the business payback machine and this could provide an answer in say, ten years.

Airlines: Will you make Thai Airways give up routes to second tier operators so that we can gain competitive edge?

Government: Ahem!

Airlines: OK, it''s an easy choice.

Edited November 16, 2009 by chiang mai

[zzaa09]

This is a really funny thread, everyone says let the people and commercial forces decide and I agree with that entirely, a number of people also seem to want to keep DM open. But when asked how how they would organise traffic between Swampy and DM, nobody seems prepared to take a stab at the best solution! Go ask London they say, well, London's set up is not quite the same as Bangkok, as has already been pointed out. Leave it up to the government and they will find an answer and doubtless some people will not be satisfied with it, why, because there is no good answer to the problem but folks don't seem interested in thinking through the options, instead it's easier to fall back on the old lines of, I like DM, Swampy's no good, DM's near to my house - perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

Silly indeed, as most of the well-intended discussion throughout is a bit moot. One airport. Two airports. The surface issues are less inportant than the ever-present criminal activity, graft, and corruption that casually align themselves regarding the airport{s} debate. What really baffles me is that such a influential international governing body as the IATA truely misses the boat as to regarding what's a priority.

[chiang mai]

perhaps if people really thought through the issues they would realise that having two airports in Bangkok is just not viable, an answer that previous administrations already arrived at years ago and now one that IATA supports. Silly really.

You have supplied absolutely no supporting evidence to back up your conviction there would be a problem. Let the airlines decide where they want to operate out of. Air Asia would almost certainly set up shop at DMK. They may or may not run parallel flights out of Swampy if they could make money at it. Otherwise, who cares? Let people who want to fly out of Swampy fly TG.

I would never take ANYTHING that didn't fly out of DMK if I could get around it, therefore there would be no transit issue. If it cost slightly more at DMK, so be it. I'd pay, and so would many others. The whole thing about not being able to transit back and forth is rubbish. The problem is corruption pure and simple. There is too much money at stake here, and no government has ever considered the people when making their decisions. You really are naive if you believe anyone thought of what is best for the people of Thailand.

Leave both airports open to all flights, except restrict cargo to operating out of Suvharnabhumi, since they don't seem to mind it. No need to provide transport between the 2, except for shuttle buses. It's OK if they take 90 minutes during traffic. Other cities have the same problem, and they survive.

Problem solved. The market will eventually arrive at a distribution of traffic that optimizes resources and best meets customer demand. The true fear is, that distribution will be 100% utilization at DMK, and 20% at that new monstrosity nobody wants.

Please explain exactly why this wouldn't work if you are going to say the idea is so unthinkable. And don't use the excuse it isn't convenient for passengers. Most people would have absolutely no problem with it. If you don't want to transfer between airports, pay the fees to use an airline that files into the airport you want. Otherwise, if cost is your main concern and you want to split airports, allow the time to do this. It is a very small number of people who would transfer at Bangkok between 2 international flights and couldn't connect inside 1 airport. And honestly, I don't really care about those people. That's what Changi is for.

You seem to have missed the point of this debate by a fair distance, perhaps read all the arguments again!

[harrry]

I do not think they need an underground be\tween DMK and BKK just employ a few of the elephants that currently beg from tourists to carry the few passengers who will want to transfer betwen the two.

[tgw]

first let's cut the crap about DM being able to handle all BKK traffic.

In the last 5 years, the traffic almost doubled, DM is too small and has to space for expansion. End of story.

But this evolution of traffic probably makes it necessary to build a domestic terminal at Swampy...

So the choice is: to build at Swampy or to use a fully equipped airport that is already there ?

Easy choice if you ask me - better to use what's here rather than splurge money for building an expensive addition to Swampy to handle traffic PROJECTIONS (yes, hypothetical traffic increase in the next years) with the risk that the increase in traffic is not as sharp as foreseen.

If the traffic is lower than predicted, it is easier to shut down DM again than to do as if the new Swampy domestic terminal had never been built...

I wonder why the IATA feels necessary to say something about Bangkok's airport strategy?

Who dominates the IATA? Probably the big international carriers.

Let's see what happens if DM becomes a regional hub:

Independent carriers such as Nok, Bangkok Air, etc. will not only fly thai interior flights, but also be able to fly to Vientane, Saigon, Hanoi, Jakarta, Siem Reap, Singapore, etc. for Thailand-based passengers.

And the DM costs will be lower than Swampy.

Regional airlines will also still fly between Swampy and Phuket, Koh samui, Chiang Mai, because of the steady international flow of passengers.

Looks like the international airlines will lose traffic due to regional airlines being able to bid lower on short and medium distance international flights if starting from DM, while the international airlines cannot compete because they won't be able to cover their costs if they open a second operation at DM.

The passengers win.

Therefore I am not surprised IATA is against the idea !!!

And regarding transportation between Swampy and DM, you will notice that DM already has a train station and a railway that goes down all the way to Phaya Thai then passes Makkasan, etc.

Notice something?

Those are the last official stations of the new link to Swampy...

Did you ever wonder why the rail link of Swampy was not using Skytrain standards? Well, it is using overhead lines and standard gauge.

Did you also think (as I did) that the route of the new airport link was chosen rather oddly?

The idea of a check-in service at the railway station seemed rather strange as well?

Well, it sure all does make sense now.

Edited November 16, 2009 by tgw