Suvarnabhumi To Get 4 Billion Baht To Facilitate Rising Traffic

[webfact]

Suvarnabhumi to Get 4 Billion Baht to Facilitate Rising Traffic

The Aeronautical Radio of Thailand is requesting a budget of 4 billion baht to build more runways and terminals, and to reshape its operations to facilitate the growth of passengers.

Aeronautical Radio of Thailand's President Somchai Thean-Anant said that Aeronautical Radio of Thailand or AEROTHAI, has requested a 4.4 billion baht budget from the Cabinet to revamp its aeronautical operations, to meet rising demand.

He said the sum will serve new terminals and runways and administrative operations, as the number of passengers is expected to surpass 100 million per year by 2026.

As for airport fees, the president disclosed that the second half of 2011 will see an adjustment to ensure fair treatment for small aircrafts.

With the scheme varying by the size and weight, he anticipates the newly modified rule will lead to a rise in revenue this year.

On a separate matter, AEROTHAI is hosting the sixth 'Global Air Traffic Flow Management Conference' between February 28 and March 2 in Phuket province.

The event is set to discuss aeronautical operations among 100 delegates from 19 countries.

-- Tan Network 2011-02-25

[Payboy]

Surely living up to its name for some, Suvarna-boom.

[ginjag]

Surely living up to its name for some, Suvarna-boom.

Instead of being 5th top of the class with 40 mil plus, we will be 1st in class in the 50mil/plus in the near future....Hey look at the Sweden figures

[softgeorge]

The whole place needs to be blown up and a new modern airport built. This place is so outdated and definately not user friendly. people stopped getting of planes on the tarmac 50 yrs ago. They need an airport where planes pull up to the terminals. I am sure that they could go and look at any airport in the world and get some ideas how to do things. Suvarnbhumi is 50 yrs behind the times bulldoze it and start again.

[Payboy]

Suvarnbhumi is 50 yrs behind the times bulldoze it and start again.

That kind of one-time fix would only kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

[asiawatcher]

Considering the gross mismanagement of pedestrian traffic and terminal access (as well as inter-floor) by moving walkways, it hardly needs 4 Bn thrown at it. More like change the management and the highly ridiculous blockages and allow traffic to flow more freely. As for cost of aircraft landings - and some budget airlines only paying for bus transfers across ground - you would think for expediency, access and cheaper flybridge system could be used to remove the overcrowded polluting buses that stink up the terminal when on standby - but that would be common sense and we all know the answer to that.

[softgeorge]

Considering the gross mismanagement of pedestrian traffic and terminal access (as well as inter-floor) by moving walkways, it hardly needs 4 Bn thrown at it. More like change the management and the highly ridiculous blockages and allow traffic to flow more freely. As for cost of aircraft landings - and some budget airlines only paying for bus transfers across ground - you would think for expediency, access and cheaper flybridge system could be used to remove the overcrowded polluting buses that stink up the terminal when on standby - but that would be common sense and we all know the answer to that.

It is not just budget airlines using buses. I fly from chiangmai to melbourne and back every month with a stopover in bkk never have I had a plane dock at a terminal. ( I fly Thai airways)

[lovinglife]

Considering the gross mismanagement of pedestrian traffic and terminal access (as well as inter-floor) by moving walkways, it hardly needs 4 Bn thrown at it. More like change the management and the highly ridiculous blockages and allow traffic to flow more freely. As for cost of aircraft landings - and some budget airlines only paying for bus transfers across ground - you would think for expediency, access and cheaper flybridge system could be used to remove the overcrowded polluting buses that stink up the terminal when on standby - but that would be common sense and we all know the answer to that.

It is not just budget airlines using buses. I fly from chiangmai to melbourne and back every month with a stopover in bkk never have I had a plane dock at a terminal. ( I fly Thai airways)

What your flight from Melbourne doesn't dock at a terminal?

[ginjag]

Considering the gross mismanagement of pedestrian traffic and terminal access (as well as inter-floor) by moving walkways, it hardly needs 4 Bn thrown at it. More like change the management and the highly ridiculous blockages and allow traffic to flow more freely. As for cost of aircraft landings - and some budget airlines only paying for bus transfers across ground - you would think for expediency, access and cheaper flybridge system could be used to remove the overcrowded polluting buses that stink up the terminal when on standby - but that would be common sense and we all know the answer to that.

It is not just budget airlines using buses. I fly from chiangmai to melbourne and back every month with a stopover in bkk never have I had a plane dock at a terminal. ( I fly Thai airways)

I try never to fly in age old aircraft--especially when the fare is expensive. In the older days when Thai meant low fare and quality --I did

[Nisa]

Considering the gross mismanagement of pedestrian traffic and terminal access (as well as inter-floor) by moving walkways, it hardly needs 4 Bn thrown at it. More like change the management and the highly ridiculous blockages and allow traffic to flow more freely. As for cost of aircraft landings - and some budget airlines only paying for bus transfers across ground - you would think for expediency, access and cheaper flybridge system could be used to remove the overcrowded polluting buses that stink up the terminal when on standby - but that would be common sense and we all know the answer to that.

It is not just budget airlines using buses. I fly from chiangmai to melbourne and back every month with a stopover in bkk never have I had a plane dock at a terminal. ( I fly Thai airways)

What your flight from Melbourne doesn't dock at a terminal?

I've always kind of thought the incoming international flights don't dock at the terminal. I can't remember for sure flying in from Singapore or Malasia (been a while) but I know flying within Thailand they seem to go to the gate (budget Air Asia) and every flight I've been on from from Japan or HK has not. In fact, I am trying to recall if you even pass any gates on the long walk to immigration from where the bus drops you off. I can only remember that you are pretty sealed-in in terms of staying within that hallway. I'd be curious to know if anybody has docked at a terminal on an inbound international flight.

Edit: I took Cathay Pacific from Singapore a couple years ago and "think" it did pull up to a gate.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Nisa

[softgeorge]

Considering the gross mismanagement of pedestrian traffic and terminal access (as well as inter-floor) by moving walkways, it hardly needs 4 Bn thrown at it. More like change the management and the highly ridiculous blockages and allow traffic to flow more freely. As for cost of aircraft landings - and some budget airlines only paying for bus transfers across ground - you would think for expediency, access and cheaper flybridge system could be used to remove the overcrowded polluting buses that stink up the terminal when on standby - but that would be common sense and we all know the answer to that.

It is not just budget airlines using buses. I fly from chiangmai to melbourne and back every month with a stopover in bkk never have I had a plane dock at a terminal. ( I fly Thai airways)

What your flight from Melbourne doesn't dock at a terminal?

I've always kind of thought the incoming international flights don't dock at the terminal. I can't remember for sure flying in from Singapore or Malasia (been a while) but I know flying within Thailand they seem to go to the gate (budget Air Asia) and every flight I've been on from from Japan or HK has not. In fact, I am trying to recall if you even pass any gates on the long walk to immigration from where the bus drops you off. I can only remember that you are pretty sealed-in in terms of staying within that hallway. I'd be curious to know if anybody has docked at a terminal on an inbound international flight.

Edit: I took Cathay Pacific from Singapore a couple years ago and "think" it did pull up to a gate.

I only know that thai International from Melbourne (Aust) do not dock at the terminal. (I do it it 13 times per yr) you get onto a bloody bus that seems to travel to the far end of the airport. Yes you have an extreemly long walk 1,300 metres along empty barren corridors after getting off the bus. My flight normally gets in at 5.15 a.m and have a connecting flight to Chiangmai. Immigration doesn't open untill 7.30 so you are stuck in the corridors until you get through there with nothing to do. Thai airways lounges are on the otherside of immigration so I can't even get into them. Same with the coffee shops etc for those that don't use the lounges. I am kind of use to it and know what to expect but there are a lot of 1st time visitors complaing about the airport. Some that I speak with whilst killing time say that the airport is appalling and if it represented Thailand they won't be comming back. Great 1st impression the place gives to visitors.

[ginjag]

Soft george. I do believe what you put...for some reason the said flight T.G.BKK/Mel mostly does not get direct access to a gate. My friends, family and myself fly in new aircraft at a lower price that 4th in the world THAI. Emirates and Etihad, europe via Dubai/Abu Dhabi, but I have been forunate to have never had to BUS it in. easy enquiry would say that MOST International flights do stop at the terminal gates. Internal regular to Suvanabhumi Air asia, (more than half the price of Thai, on internet booked in advance, and always stop at a gate. Brill for me I dont have problems ever at the airport because I know the ropes. the down side is if you dont know and you arrive, especially on a non package flight, your gonna get salted -big time and your wallet will see the damage

[Nisa]

It is not just budget airlines using buses. I fly from chiangmai to melbourne and back every month with a stopover in bkk never have I had a plane dock at a terminal. ( I fly Thai airways)

What your flight from Melbourne doesn't dock at a terminal?

I've always kind of thought the incoming international flights don't dock at the terminal. I can't remember for sure flying in from Singapore or Malasia (been a while) but I know flying within Thailand they seem to go to the gate (budget Air Asia) and every flight I've been on from from Japan or HK has not. In fact, I am trying to recall if you even pass any gates on the long walk to immigration from where the bus drops you off. I can only remember that you are pretty sealed-in in terms of staying within that hallway. I'd be curious to know if anybody has docked at a terminal on an inbound international flight.

Edit: I took Cathay Pacific from Singapore a couple years ago and "think" it did pull up to a gate.

I only know that thai International from Melbourne (Aust) do not dock at the terminal. (I do it it 13 times per yr) you get onto a bloody bus that seems to travel to the far end of the airport. Yes you have an extreemly long walk 1,300 metres along empty barren corridors after getting off the bus. My flight normally gets in at 5.15 a.m and have a connecting flight to Chiangmai. Immigration doesn't open untill 7.30 so you are stuck in the corridors until you get through there with nothing to do. Thai airways lounges are on the otherside of immigration so I can't even get into them. Same with the coffee shops etc for those that don't use the lounges. I am kind of use to it and know what to expect but there are a lot of 1st time visitors complaing about the airport. Some that I speak with whilst killing time say that the airport is appalling and if it represented Thailand they won't be comming back. Great 1st impression the place gives to visitors.

Was just out with a friend who is a retired international pilot and he told me that it depends on the airline and that there is an additional fee to be able to deboard at a gate. He also told me that Thai Airways gets preferential treatment and couldn't count the number of times where planes were waiting for landing clearance and the Thai Airway flights would get priority over the other flights regardless of their position in line.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Nisa

[Thai at Heart]

Suvarnbhumi is 50 yrs behind the times bulldoze it and start again.

That kind of one-time fix would only kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

Surely knocking it down and starting it again would represent a new batch of even brighter shinier eggs, wouldn't it?

[ginjag]

If Thai couldn't at its own national airport it would be a sorry shame. I would think that all national airlines at their own airports get this treetment. But some prestigious airlines, get this treatment, in other countries, as they are an asset to the airport and are regarded vip. Etihad/emirates/eva/ not always but most of the time. Especially Manchester. with ET-EM. the best example being concord for prestige...and priority rights, but there was a country that didn't like it, cause they didn't make it, and couln't compete as it flew at Mach2 in 1969 and went accross the "pond" in just over 3 hours. we brits smile at that. But back on subject..this is about a few billion for terminals and runways.......good forward planning for a new airport reply to #13

Edited February 25, 2011 by metisdead
Font

[David Barker]

Regularly use Qatar via Doha and always uses the same gate, never been bussed and not a long walk.

[kuffki]

Just to clarify. If the tourist figures are down from previous years, why would AOT need to build more runways and expand terminals?

To accommodate more planes, but official figures say less arrivals so............??????

Also at least 25% of the airport right now has not been used and is rather blocked off, so why do they want to expand it when they do not even use what they already have?

[Nisa]

Just to clarify. If the tourist figures are down from previous years, why would AOT need to build more runways and expand terminals?

To accommodate more planes, but official figures say less arrivals so............??????

Also at least 25% of the airport right now has not been used and is rather blocked off, so why do they want to expand it when they do not even use what they already have?

What is the part that makes up the 25% not in use? Is this shops or actual section of the airport? I never really noticed too much in terms of any section not being used but then again I really try to spend as little time browsing airports as possible

What year(s) are the arrivals down? I think we need to look at both Bangkok airports (past and present) to get an idea of the actual trend given the problems in Thailand (Reds/Yellows) as well as global economy causing tourism to be down in most countries. I believe there are also about 2 million flights yearly (in/out) of the old airport right now and not sure how long they plan on keeping that open to the public. I also "think" those airlines operating at the old airport were originally in the new airport but moved back at some point.

I have no idea how accurate their prediction of 100 million visitors are but would guess it is going to increase dramatically during this time. Given they only have 2 runways, I can certainly see the need to add more especially to handle smaller aircraft which I believe will also increase dramatically during this time with more people flying within country especially given the terrible rail service and bus prices being near the same as a discounted air flights.

And unless that 25% not used is terminals/gates then I can certainly see a need to add more given so many flights don't de-board at a gate.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Nisa

[kuffki]

Just to clarify. If the tourist figures are down from previous years, why would AOT need to build more runways and expand terminals?

To accommodate more planes, but official figures say less arrivals so............??????

Also at least 25% of the airport right now has not been used and is rather blocked off, so why do they want to expand it when they do not even use what they already have?

What is the part that makes up the 25% not in use? Is this shops or actual section of the airport? I never really noticed too much in terms of any section not being used but then again I really try to spend as little time browsing airports as possible

What year(s) are the arrivals down? I think we need to look at both Bangkok airports (past and present) to get an idea of the actual trend given the problems in Thailand (Reds/Yellows) as well as global economy causing tourism to be down in most countries. I believe there are also about 2 million flights yearly (in/out) of the old airport right now and not sure how long they plan on keeping that open to the public. I also "think" those airlines operating at the old airport were originally in the new airport but moved back at some point.

I have no idea how accurate their prediction of 100 million visitors are but would guess it is going to increase dramatically during this time. Given they only have 2 runways, I can certainly see the need to add more especially to handle smaller aircraft which I believe will also increase dramatically during this time with more people flying within country especially given the terrible rail service and bus prices being near the same as a discounted air flights.

And unless that 25% not used is terminals/gates then I can certainly see a need to add more given so many flights don't de-board at a gate.

Last time i was in the airport there were shops areas and lounge areas which were blocked off. Some gates are perm blocked off and i doubt were ever used.

Its irrelevant in what years numbers were up/down. What is relevant is the fact that they ,not me, officially reporting tourist numbers as being down.

I do not think having more runways or bigger terminal results in more arrivals or more flights. I am not a pilot, but i am pretty sure the number of flights would depend on the airlines not the airport.

They can predict whatever they like and promote whatever they like, bottom line is for years they managed just fine with 1 airport Don Muang, then they built a new one and have been doing just fine.

Now, if say for the past 50 years number did not reach 100 million or whatever they like come up, why would the numbers go up, especially considering once again that the numbers are down from previous years.

But even with wishful thinking, if numbers were to bounce back, it would be to previous numbers, certainly not 5 or 10 times more.

In all my times of being at Suva, my flights were never delayed or diverted or held up(when arriving) so what is really the need to have more runways?

In all my travels, i never had a problem finding a seat or a space or was lining up somewhere(besides immigration) so again what is the need to expand the terminal? Keep in mind that immigration has enough booths as is, just not enough officers or booths open.

[Nisa]

Clearly the numbers do matter in predicting for future expansion. Here are the numbers of international tourist arrivals to Thailand that show they nearly doubled in the last 10 years. I didn't look for year over year air travelers within Thailand but it would be safe to assume those numbers are showing an increasing trend too.

Edit: These numbers are from Office of Tourism Development. Not sure how they are defining an international tourist but assume it is the same criteria for each year. I saw on another thread that of the 40+ million people who traveled through (in/out/transfer) the airport last year that 75% were international.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Nisa

[kuffki]

Clearly the numbers do matter in predicting for future expansion. Here are the numbers of international tourist arrivals to Thailand that show they nearly doubled in the last 10 years. I didn't look for year over year air travelers within Thailand but it would be safe to assume those numbers are showing an increasing trend too.

Yes Nisa, numbers have increased over the past 10 years but have dropped over the past 2.

Since airport was open in 2006 you would think it was built to accomodate the numbers during that time plus an increase.

Now that the increase is rather a decrease there is no need to expand, unless they are planning to take another 15 years to make the extensions.

However i would guess and i do emphasize guess that most of the money they want is to feed their own pockets

[Nisa]

Yes Nisa, numbers have increased over the past 10 years but have dropped over the past 2.

Since airport was open in 2006 you would think it was built to accomodate the numbers during that time plus an increase.

Now that the increase is rather a decrease there is no need to expand, unless they are planning to take another 15 years to make the extensions.

However i would guess and i do emphasize guess that most of the money they want is to feed their own pockets

I agree 100% that somebody should have thought about the future when they built the airport .... this should actually be a big question especially if the same planners are involved.

However, I disagree looking at these numbers that tourism will decline in future years.

As for feeding their own pockets .. I think that is the case for most big government projects everywhere but the people generally get something out of it. I guess the argument here would be if these improvements are needed and will serve Thailand. My understanding too is there are problems with the current runways that require constant re-work to keep them safe. So, the additional runways may also be to allow them to actually fix the problems with the existing runways.

Edit: Also, it appears numbers didn't drop in 2010 but did in 2008 & 2009 ... unless I am reading this wrong. It shows 1997 & 2011 on the scale but these are actual numbers are from 1998 through 2010

Edited February 26, 2011 by Nisa

[Nisa]

Possibly 2010 was down from expected judging from the chart. Beyond the drop off years there seems to be a calculated exponential in terms of the increasing numbers over the years. You can pretty much draw a straight line from 1998 to 2010 but 2010 does seem to be down a little from the overall growth trend (looking at the chart & not actually doing the math).

Even after years where events caused international tourism to drop off the following years it nearly picked up at a rate as if it never dropped off and didn't need to grow back from the drop but instead continued the trend from the previous up year.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Nisa

[kuffki]

Possibly 2010 was down from expected judging from the chart. Beyond the drop off years there seems to be a calculated exponential in terms of the increasing numbers over the years. You can pretty much draw a straight line from 1998 to 2010 but 2010 does seem to be down a little from the overall growth trend (looking at the chart & not actually doing the math).

Even after years where events caused international tourism to drop off the following years it nearly picked up at a rate as if it never dropped off and didn't need to really grow back from the drop but instead continue the trend from the previous up year.

yes, 1 would not even know there was and still is world economic crisis according to the chart or TAT.

[jackr]

Maybe they can use some of that to buy some seating.

[whybother]

Yes Nisa, numbers have increased over the past 10 years but have dropped over the past 2.

Since airport was open in 2006 you would think it was built to accomodate the numbers during that time plus an increase.

Now that the increase is rather a decrease there is no need to expand, unless they are planning to take another 15 years to make the extensions.

However i would guess and i do emphasize guess that most of the money they want is to feed their own pockets

The airport was designed with future upgrades in mind. Why build it for 100 million pax if it won't get to that for another 50 years?

Currently, it can handle 45 million pax. Phase 2 will increase that to 80 million pax. http://www.suvarnabhumiairport.com/business_phase2_en.php

[kuffki]

Yes Nisa, numbers have increased over the past 10 years but have dropped over the past 2.

Since airport was open in 2006 you would think it was built to accomodate the numbers during that time plus an increase.

Now that the increase is rather a decrease there is no need to expand, unless they are planning to take another 15 years to make the extensions.

However i would guess and i do emphasize guess that most of the money they want is to feed their own pockets

The airport was designed with future upgrades in mind. Why build it for 100 million pax if it won't get to that for another 50 years?

Currently, it can handle 45 million pax. Phase 2 will increase that to 80 million pax. http://www.suvarnabh...s_phase2_en.php

So currently it can handle 45 million, but gets not even 20 million and its time to expand to handle 80 million?

Perhaps once the numbers start to increase rather then decrease would be the time to start the upgrades not other way around

[whybother]

So currently it can handle 45 million, but gets not even 20 million and its time to expand to handle 80 million?

Perhaps once the numbers start to increase rather then decrease would be the time to start the upgrades not other way around

1) There is no point starting the upgrades when the airport reaches capacity if it takes 5-10 years to complete them.

2) 20 million? How did Suv get to be the 5th best airport in the 40 million+ category? Last year there were 42 million passengers.

[kuffki]

So currently it can handle 45 million, but gets not even 20 million and its time to expand to handle 80 million?

Perhaps once the numbers start to increase rather then decrease would be the time to start the upgrades not other way around

1) There is no point starting the upgrades when the airport reaches capacity if it takes 5-10 years to complete them.

2) 20 million? How did Suv get to be the 5th best airport in the 40 million+ category? Last year there were 42 million passengers.

15 million international and you trying to say 27 million local????

If thats the case, why would phase 2 would be to accomodate 20 million(total) local when they already get 27 million(last year as per your post)

[whybother]

15 million international and you trying to say 27 million local????

If thats the case, why would phase 2 would be to accomodate 20 million(total) local when they already get 27 million(last year as per your post)

I'm not saying it. Lots of airport articles are.

This says 38 million for Jan-Nov 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic#2010_year-to-date_statistics

This says 7 million for Jan 2010. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/18/338523/bangkok-suvarnabhumi-airports-january-traffic-up-28.html

This says 32 million for 9 months to June 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/10/airports-passenger-numbers-idUSSGE669A5D20100710

This says 42 million in 2010

Where are you getting your numbers?