Second Airport On Samui...what's The Status?

[Thaipwriter]

Why dont they just finish the first airport on Samui.

Those temporary wooden huts they've been using will blow away in the wind one day.

And as for the luggage conveyor belt!

[Rooo]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

Jimbo,free trade is open to all .Monopolies are banned in most countries.Great they opened the route, but they also benefited a hel_l of a lot.If you think monopolies are the way to go, well my friend you have a lot to learn.

[Charma]

Why dont they just finish the first airport on Samui.

Those temporary wooden huts they've been using will blow away in the wind one day.

And as for the luggage conveyor belt!

But these are the things that make the airport so great!

[BKKDUDE]

People in this forum foregting that bangkok air is taking double benifit:

1-Solely using airport for their airline

2-Over charging ticket price

If you think for the risk they took first day, reward should be "Solely using airport for their airline" and not "over charging ticket price"

[somchai jones]

I think the prices on Bangkok Airways are very reasonable.

Good service too (refreshing to find Thai cabin crew as courteous as they once used to be on Thai Inter).

My views on the fares would probably be different if I was still a student backpacker, but then in those days I wouldn't have been flying anyway, I'd have been on the train and the boat.

[John 1]

How can you say reasonable price, you can fly from Bangkok to Singapore return for less and the service is just as good, if not better.

[somchai jones]

How can you say reasonable price, you can fly from Bangkok to Singapore return for less and the service is just as good, if not better.

John, it's under £100 for a return ticket to Samui. £60 return on selected flights.

In my book, that's very reasonable.

I can't comment on your Singapore flight comparison as when I fly to Singapore, it's always for business and the company pays.

However, I did recently look at Bangkok to KL return flights on Thai Inter and they were around £300.

As I said IMHO reasonable fare, very polite service. i.e. more polite than the service I get when I regularly fly on Thai Inter. Better service on Singapore Air but then they're better than anyone else, again IMHO that is.

[womble]

The bangkok airways flight between samui and Bangkok is much more expensive than other internal flights in Thailand of similar distance.

[Gatorade]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

Totally agree with you.

Bangkok Airways is not a charity, they have a product where prices will be dictated by market forces. If it is too expensive then people will make alternative arrangements.

Samui is available to other operators ; however, the present competition do not have the right aircraft for the Runway length and load bearing characteristics.

The fares are expensive for Thai domestic routes but not when when compared with those operators in Europe offering a similar service. E.g. London-Brussels

Because a minority feel that the fares are too high is not good enough reason to build another airport.

Going back to the original argument that there needs to be a new airport to hande the forecast passenger increase is nonsense. Between 0600 and 2300 there are approx 28 flights each way in and out of Samui. Even without operating throughout the night the aircraft traffic numbers could be increased 100%.

[Jimbo551]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

I think you are shareholder, i hop company collapse and ur shares go south too

Not at all - just a regular traveller who appreciates that you have to pay for good service and a plain old fashioned capitalist at heart who believes in the law of supply and demand and if the fares were too high then the planes would not be full and and things would no doubt change. You are paying for convenience and service. If you consider the cost too much take a bus and a ferry etc etc (which I have done in the past) - I happily pay the going rate to avoid that now.

Yes of course I would prefer it if the fares were cheaper - but I am not going to slag of BKK Airways becuase they are not.

[Charma]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

Totally agree with you.

Bangkok Airways is not a charity, they have a product where prices will be dictated by market forces. If it is too expensive then people will make alternative arrangements.

Samui is available to other operators ; however, the present competition do not have the right aircraft for the Runway length and load bearing characteristics.

The fares are expensive for Thai domestic routes but not when when compared with those operators in Europe offering a similar service. E.g. London-Brussels

Because a minority feel that the fares are too high is not good enough reason to build another airport.

Going back to the original argument that there needs to be a new airport to hande the forecast passenger increase is nonsense. Between 0600 and 2300 there are approx 28 flights each way in and out of Samui. Even without operating throughout the night the aircraft traffic numbers could be increased 100%.

Well that's the whole point. Because they have a monopoly, there are no market forces! Boats cannot compete with planes.

I too would rather pay the inflated airfare than see another airport built. I really don't think it is needed. But I would also like to see some kind of regulation of the monopoly that BKA have. It is clear that they do charge more for Samui flights than other similar internal ones. Saying that the flights are cheap compared to other countries kind of misses the point. If you apply that argument to evrything else, then you would be happy for monopolies everywhere. If one company owned all the bars and supermarkets in Samui and decided to sell beer at 200 baht a pop, would you be happy and say, well it compares well to the UK! I suspect not.

[21prozent]

Hi all,

I just heard that the new airport, which is already built as you know, will be used as court and prison.

Greetings, Dirk

[Gatorade]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

Totally agree with you.

Bangkok Airways is not a charity, they have a product where prices will be dictated by market forces. If it is too expensive then people will make alternative arrangements.

Samui is available to other operators ; however, the present competition do not have the right aircraft for the Runway length and load bearing characteristics.

The fares are expensive for Thai domestic routes but not when when compared with those operators in Europe offering a similar service. E.g. London-Brussels

Because a minority feel that the fares are too high is not good enough reason to build another airport.

Going back to the original argument that there needs to be a new airport to hande the forecast passenger increase is nonsense. Between 0600 and 2300 there are approx 28 flights each way in and out of Samui. Even without operating throughout the night the aircraft traffic numbers could be increased 100%.

Well that's the whole point. Because they have a monopoly, there are no market forces! Boats cannot compete with planes.

I too would rather pay the inflated airfare than see another airport built. I really don't think it is needed. But I would also like to see some kind of regulation of the monopoly that BKA have. It is clear that they do charge more for Samui flights than other similar internal ones. Saying that the flights are cheap compared to other countries kind of misses the point. If you apply that argument to evrything else, then you would be happy for monopolies everywhere. If one company owned all the bars and supermarkets in Samui and decided to sell beer at 200 baht a pop, would you be happy and say, well it compares well to the UK! I suspect not.

Well, if the beer compared, yes I would!

How is it a monopoly if someone takes all the risk, develops and invests massive amounts of capital, purchases special equipment just to share it out if it succeeds. I wouldn't.

If you are that concerned why not get a Bangkok Airways Residents card and get a 20% discount.

[Rooo]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

Totally agree with you.

Bangkok Airways is not a charity, they have a product where prices will be dictated by market forces. If it is too expensive then people will make alternative arrangements.

Samui is available to other operators ; however, the present competition do not have the right aircraft for the Runway length and load bearing characteristics.

The fares are expensive for Thai domestic routes but not when when compared with those operators in Europe offering a similar service. E.g. London-Brussels

Because a minority feel that the fares are too high is not good enough reason to build another airport.

Going back to the original argument that there needs to be a new airport to hande the forecast passenger increase is nonsense. Between 0600 and 2300 there are approx 28 flights each way in and out of Samui. Even without operating throughout the night the aircraft traffic numbers could be increased 100%.

Well that's the whole point. Because they have a monopoly, there are no market forces! Boats cannot compete with planes.

I too would rather pay the inflated airfare than see another airport built. I really don't think it is needed. But I would also like to see some kind of regulation of the monopoly that BKA have. It is clear that they do charge more for Samui flights than other similar internal ones. Saying that the flights are cheap compared to other countries kind of misses the point. If you apply that argument to evrything else, then you would be happy for monopolies everywhere. If one company owned all the bars and supermarkets in Samui and decided to sell beer at 200 baht a pop, would you be happy and say, well it compares well to the UK! I suspect not.

Well, if the beer compared, yes I would!

How is it a monopoly if someone takes all the risk, develops and invests massive amounts of capital, purchases special equipment just to share it out if it succeeds. I wouldn't.

If you are that concerned why not get a Bangkok Airways Residents card and get a 20% discount.

All you have to think is most people equate the amount back to their home currencies.Ok most people talk ENGLISH pound the strongest currency.Try & equate back to Thai Baht & normal Thai people, or to foreigners working in Thailand or just living here,getting paid Thai wages.On the beer front, well all farangs here run bars expecting european returns & wages.You then can figure out why Samui is so expensive.How many ENGLISH people have you heard say , well it's only 3 quid.

Agree BAW did all the work & hard yards,If you only run a limited number of flights a day I can understand the cost factor. I have a resident card, have you ever tried booking on the net?

Give you another example why are their international fares more competitive?Competition.As for service it's what I expect, nothing fancy or to rave about.

[Charma]

"Well, if the beer compared, yes I would!

How is it a monopoly if someone takes all the risk, develops and invests massive amounts of capital, purchases special equipment just to share it out if it succeeds. I wouldn't.

If you are that concerned why not get a Bangkok Airways Residents card and get a 20% discount."

It is a monopoly by virtue of there being no competition!

No-one expects them to do it for free! Of course they are entitled to make a good profit from their investment. The problem is that they have inflated the ticket prices and they have an inflated the landing fees for other airlines to the extent that they cannot compete. Businesses love monopolies.

They are a good airline and the prices are similar to the discount airlines operating in the UK. Most westerners can afford these fares, but most Thais have to get a boat/bus. That is bad enough. But to trash half the island to build another airport to break this monopoly would be crazy. I hope that SBK is right and that this is just a bit of postering to force Bangkok Airways hand.

edit for typo

Edited July 27, 2006 by Charma

[somchai jones]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

I think you are shareholder, i hop company collapse and ur shares go south too

Not at all - just a regular traveller who appreciates that you have to pay for good service and a plain old fashioned capitalist at heart who believes in the law of supply and demand and if the fares were too high then the planes would not be full and and things would no doubt change. You are paying for convenience and service. If you consider the cost too much take a bus and a ferry etc etc (which I have done in the past) - I happily pay the going rate to avoid that now.

Yes of course I would prefer it if the fares were cheaper - but I am not going to slag of BKK Airways becuase they are not.

Well put. Sums it up.

[Charma]

We can all bitch and moan about the Bangkok Airways fares - but remember without Bangkok Airways there probably would not be an airport at all. They took their own money and invested it in building the whole facility.

Some might wish to argue that Samui would have been better off without an airport. They are entitled to their point of view - but equally why should they deny the Thais the benefit of travel to this island by air - and a lot of Thais do use it.

Also why should they allow other airlines to fly in at special rates and create competition on routes that they have developed?

I agree it is galling that the fares are high - but I would not deny their right to charge what they like - they took the risk and they deserve the rewards.

I think you are shareholder, i hop company collapse and ur shares go south too

Not at all - just a regular traveller who appreciates that you have to pay for good service and a plain old fashioned capitalist at heart who believes in the law of supply and demand and if the fares were too high then the planes would not be full and and things would no doubt change. You are paying for convenience and service. If you consider the cost too much take a bus and a ferry etc etc (which I have done in the past) - I happily pay the going rate to avoid that now.

Yes of course I would prefer it if the fares were cheaper - but I am not going to slag of BKK Airways becuase they are not.

Well put. Sums it up.

Capitalism is founded on competition. Monopolies are a mechanism of communism!

[iian23]

I dont know where you get this 20 miles restriction between airports from but it is nonsense there are many airports in the world much nearer than 20 miles. I cant speak for FAA but it is not an ICAO or CAA rule. Two airport together does not present too many problems for Air Traffic Control.

I could be wrong but I believe there is a rule withing Thailand that small airports are only allowed 34 flights per day. While the runway capacity is extremely underutilised at Samui, Bangkok Airways use up the 34 flight limit every day. Allowing them to charge comparitably very high prices for their flight and creating the need for another airport.

If the demand is there it will have to be met whether we like it or not, they call it progress

[Gatorade]

I dont know where you get this 20 miles restriction between airports from but it is nonsense there are many airports in the world much nearer than 20 miles. I cant speak for FAA but it is not an ICAO or CAA rule. Two airport together does not present too many problems for Air Traffic Control.

I could be wrong but I believe there is a rule withing Thailand that small airports are only allowed 34 flights per day. While the runway capacity is extremely underutilised at Samui, Bangkok Airways use up the 34 flight limit every day. Allowing them to charge comparitably very high prices for their flight and creating the need for another airport.

If the demand is there it will have to be met whether we like it or not, they call it progress

Yes, you are wrong. There is no such limit on Thai domestic airports, including Samui. Just check with the Thailand Aeronautical Information Publication. Some limits are imposed because of night restrictions and others due to the fact that ATC sometimes require high separation criteria when the weather is marginal.There is only an Instrument Approach Procedure at Samui and not an Instrument landing system sometimes this causes flight delays.

A cursory glance at the BKK Airways timetable yesterday shows 56 'movements' (in and out).

Light aircraft count as well, I have carried out many circuits and landing at Samui in a light aircraft and each one is deemed to be a 'movement'. You can bet BKK Airways would have objected if I was using one of their so called allocated "slots" as I would be taking up to ten at a time!

There is plenty of spare capacity at the existing airport. There is no need for a new one. This was discussed in length a few weeks back, including the so-called 20 Nautical mile restriction.

[Charma]

I dont know where you get this 20 miles restriction between airports from but it is nonsense there are many airports in the world much nearer than 20 miles. I cant speak for FAA but it is not an ICAO or CAA rule. Two airport together does not present too many problems for Air Traffic Control.

I could be wrong but I believe there is a rule withing Thailand that small airports are only allowed 34 flights per day. While the runway capacity is extremely underutilised at Samui, Bangkok Airways use up the 34 flight limit every day. Allowing them to charge comparitably very high prices for their flight and creating the need for another airport.

If the demand is there it will have to be met whether we like it or not, they call it progress

Yes, you are wrong. There is no such limit on Thai domestic airports, including Samui. Just check with the Thailand Aeronautical Information Publication. Some limits are imposed because of night restrictions and others due to the fact that ATC sometimes require high separation criteria when the weather is marginal.There is only an Instrument Approach Procedure at Samui and not an Instrument landing system sometimes this causes flight delays.

A cursory glance at the BKK Airways timetable yesterday shows 56 'movements' (in and out).

Light aircraft count as well, I have carried out many circuits and landing at Samui in a light aircraft and each one is deemed to be a 'movement'. You can bet BKK Airways would have objected if I was using one of their so called allocated "slots" as I would be taking up to ten at a time!

There is plenty of spare capacity at the existing airport. There is no need for a new one. This was discussed in length a few weeks back, including the so-called 20 Nautical mile restriction.

Any update on the seaplane operations Gatorade?

[iian23]

Yes Mr Gatorade I am well aware what the definition of a movement is, but as we are on a Samui forum whoses members are mostly not from the aviation world, I used the word "flights". How are your maths? 34 flights equals 68 movements (thats in and out), 56 movements means 29 flights.

I do not require explanation of separation minima and landing systems by a 2-bit puddle jumper like you. I am an Air Traffic Controller.

Obviously the limitation to which I was refering was not including tin pot sea planes and training flights or as you say Bangkok Airways would not allow them. Trouble is, not having the superior intelligence and memory retention of a high and mighty pilot like yourself, I cannot remember which publication I read this limitation in.

Next time you take your cursory glance at the schedule see if there are regularly more than 34 flights in one day (thats 68 movements in and out!). I have never seen more.

As far as the Thailand AIP is concerned are you telling me you have read ALL of it. The restriction could be a stupid government or Taskin rule and not appear in the AIP.

However I am not a pilot and therefore I am sometimes wrong are you?

[Gatorade]

Yes Mr Gatorade I am well aware what the definition of a movement is, but as we are on a Samui forum whoses members are mostly not from the aviation world, I used the word "flights". How are your maths? 34 flights equals 68 movements (thats in and out), 56 movements means 29 flights.

I do not require explanation of separation minima and landing systems by a 2-bit puddle jumper like you. I am an Air Traffic Controller.

Obviously the limitation to which I was refering was not including tin pot sea planes and training flights or as you say Bangkok Airways would not allow them. Trouble is, not having the superior intelligence and memory retention of a high and mighty pilot like yourself, I cannot remember which publication I read this limitation in.

Next time you take your cursory glance at the schedule see if there are regularly more than 34 flights in one day (thats 68 movements in and out!). I have never seen more.

As far as the Thailand AIP is concerned are you telling me you have read ALL of it. The restriction could be a stupid government or Taskin rule and not appear in the AIP.

However I am not a pilot and therefore I am sometimes wrong are you?

Golly gosh I didn't realise that you were an "Air Traffic Controller" Seems I've touched a nerve!

There were 29 flights (68 movements) on that particular day. Not that it matters but it would be useful for everyone if you could identify the limitation you were referring to?Commercial, Military, two bit puddle jumping? If you are going to spout rubbish then at least find a quotable source.

I don't think that you really need to be so arrogant in assuming that the rest of the forum members are not as well versed as you on Aviation matters.

Perhaps you should read all of the previous threads on the subject before bursting a blood vessel!

For Charma.

The Licence applications to operate are now with the Minister, having been accepted by the Civil Aviation Director. Hopefully the Ranong runs will start in the next month or two. Mai pen rai!

[iian23]

1 * 2 = 2

2 * 2 = 4

3 * 2 = 6

4 * 2 = 8

Are you following Mr Gatorade?

29 * 2 = 68?

At my school it was 58

So tell me are you the pilot of the seaplane?

Maybe your numerical skills explain the irresponsible low level fly overs of a crowded Chaweng beach several weeks ago, maybe you struggle to insert the correct pressure settings on your altimeter!

[Gatorade]

1 * 2 = 2

2 * 2 = 4

3 * 2 = 6

4 * 2 = 8

Are you following Mr Gatorade?

29 * 2 = 68?

At my school it was 58

So tell me are you the pilot of the seaplane?

Maybe your numerical skills explain the irresponsible low level fly overs of a crowded Chaweng beach several weeks ago, maybe you struggle to insert the correct pressure settings on your altimeter!

This post concerned the second airport and is discussed elsewhere. You stated that there were limitations on the number of movements at domestic airports = 34 (Did it escaped your notice that Samui isn't just domestic?)

Why don't you just answer the question instead of blathering vitriol?

Where exactly did you dream up the number 34???

[Shrubbery]

It is so reassuring to see that a member of ATC and a Pilot get on so well.

[taxexile]

I do not require explanation of separation minima and landing systems by a 2-bit puddle jumper like you. I am an Air Traffic Controller.

what an arrogant statement , i know a 747 pilot who was a 2- bit puddle jumper for a while before moving on. puddle jumping is probably good practice and good fun too.

perhaps the atc at some time failed his pilot tests due to lack of bottle or haemhorroids and had to settle for a desk job and has been left with 'issues"

Edited August 15, 2006 by taxexile