Samui Residents To Bid For New Airport In Monopoly Challenge

[Boater]

Samui Residents to Bid for New Airport in Monopoly Challenge

PHUKET: Samui residents have banded together to buy 2000 rai for a new airport to challenge a monopoly held by Bangkok Airways.

The plan for a second ''Samui airport'' was a measure of the discontent with the way that the existing airport was being run, the Phuket-based chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Tourism, Tunyaratt Achariyachai, [read more]

-- ethailand.com 2011-10-05

Edited October 5, 2011 by webfact
//edited by Admin

[Boater]

NOTE

''Bangkok Airways' fares for the high season to Samui are going to rise by 55 percent,''

they are already 4000 THB , so now they will be close to 7000 THB one way !

[smokie36]

This project if it gets off the ground fully should see the building of a proper International runway and will open up Khanom and Chumphon as well as Samui to direct flights avoiding Bangkok.

Finally the whole area will receive welcome tourist numbers!

[steelerian]

Would be great if it happens, but I cant see the bogwigs of BKK Airways and his mates in the government allowing this to happen.

[limbos]

"Residents in the industry", interesting development. Would be a good alternative to the current situation, for sure.

[Rooo]

"Residents in the industry", interesting development. Would be a good alternative to the current situation, for sure.

It all sounds great on the surface, but residents buying land is still a private Co concept.

[carmine]

This monopoly is allowed by the highest levels of government. Good old ex prime minister Abhisit turned a blind eye also.

Nothing will change, you have more chance seeing the taxis turn on their meters. So, just like that be enforced... it won't happen so forget about it and enjoy the sunshine. :jap:

[limbos]

"Residents in the industry", interesting development. Would be a good alternative to the current situation, for sure.

It all sounds great on the surface, but residents buying land is still a private Co concept.

Good point

[BigC]

NOTE

''Bangkok Airways' fares for the high season to Samui are going to rise by 55 percent,''

they are already 4000 THB , so now they will be close to 7000 THB one way !

that would be the best investment i would have invested in in samui. just hoep they don't get checky and macth BBK's prices or make them sonly slightly cheaper. lol

[itishothere]

NOTE

''Bangkok Airways' fares for the high season to Samui are going to rise by 55 percent,''

they are already 4000 THB , so now they will be close to 7000 THB one way !

Well if that happens, then that is what they will be selling.

One way tickets. I'll turn the lights off on the way out.

[carmine]

NOTE

''Bangkok Airways' fares for the high season to Samui are going to rise by 55 percent,''

they are already 4000 THB , so now they will be close to 7000 THB one way !

Well if that happens, then that is what they will be selling.

One way tickets. I'll turn the lights off on the way out.

I see it as an unfortunate compromise you have to make living on Samui. Its a bolt on example of asian corruption which they should be embarrassed about, being such a piss take, but they are not.

Even the last prime minister, with his Eaton and Oxford education is absolutely no different. There will always be people that talk a good story but infact do nothing.

What i reckon everyone should do, that is, if they want to go the Bangkok, is buy a portable sat nav for 3900 baht (also very good for visa runs) and drive up there. It will literally take you door to door and you have the pleasure of giving the finger to Bangkok Airways with a huge cash saving sitting in your "sky rocket"

[muimatt]

Sick of the mentality of local Samui. I‘m thinking of moving to the Philippines

[matt111]

Excellent news.

And a ski slope coming soon..

Samui really is shaping up.

The directors of BKK Air must be crapping themselves, especailly that the "Samui residents" have join together.. and next step 'plan to apply', must be a rich group of very intelligent residents and with massive financial backing.. so rich that a cheaper airport is top of their priorities..

Edited October 5, 2011 by matt111

[smokie36]

I see it as an unfortunate compromise you have to make living on Samui. Its a bolt on example of asian corruption which they should be embarrassed about, being such a piss take, but they are not.

Even the last prime minister, with his Eaton and Oxford education is absolutely no different. There will always be people that talk a good story but infact do nothing.

What i reckon everyone should do, that is, if they want to go the Bangkok, is buy a portable sat nav for 3900 baht (also very good for visa runs) and drive up there. It will literally take you door to door and you have the pleasure of giving the finger to Bangkok Airways with a huge cash saving sitting in your "sky rocket"

For a cheaper trip just use Goodle Earth from your laptop while sitting in the middle of Laem Din market. All your senses will believe.....

[bungalowbob]

Just like the ski slope will never be built neither will they build another airport here on Samui. It just isn't ever going to happen. And as said what is going to be the difference between one private airport and another ? You may be able to get more people onto the island but it is never going to be way cheaper at one.

When the can sort out the taxi's and songthows on the island then they can sort out the airport.

Just don't hold your breath

[Tropicalevo]

Just like the ski slope will never be built neither will they build another airport here on Samui. It just isn't ever going to happen. And as said what is going to be the difference between one private airport and another ? You may be able to get more people onto the island but it is never going to be way cheaper at one.

When the can sort out the taxi's and songthows on the island then they can sort out the airport.

Just don't hold your breath

If I understand the article correctly - the airport is not going to be on Samui, it's going to be at Donsak. (Just tried to confirm that, but the site is unavailable.)

So - still a ferry to catch then Dick Turpin taxis.

But I agree - still not likely to happen.

[SamuiRes]

Three or four years ago Air Asia bought 600 Rai at Don Sak for exactly this purpose but gave up on the idea. They were going to run a high speed ferry between Don Sak and Koh Samui.

When Bangkok Airways redeveloped the existing airport they created the Samui Airport Property Fund which sold out at 10.9 Billion Baht with reported earnings of 10.9%. This fund effectively paid for the new airport although the runway was already there. Who is contributing to that - the passengers as we well know.

Now building a new airport would not be cheap if it is going to be big enough to handle the larger aircraft and meet international aviation standards. Who is going to fund this? Do Samui Residents have that amount of money to invest? (Maybe we should ask the taxi drivers to stump up!) It can only be done by Thais (in my opinion) partly of course due to land ownership issues but also because powerful political forces would be needed to see this through.

[DrChopper]

I know there is another long thread on this topic. I haven't bothered to read it, so apologies if I am going over old ground.

As I have said elsewhere as a recent ex pat here I came with my eyes wide open on this issue, the prices are what they are and I will live with them.

But I want to learn more. Can anyone point me to information on the cost of the airport, the details of the licence they have (is it perpetual?) when it became profitable etc?

I am not having a go at the Bangkok Airways haters, nor condoning their pricing structure, but does anyone who bemoans them have any ingsight into this or do they just moan cos they don't like it?

[itishothere]

but does anyone who bemoans them have any ingsight into this or do they just moan cos they don't like it?

Bangkok Airways is a private company, and therefore does not need to release detailed financial statements. It owns and manages the airport itself, and used to own the land. It now - through an investment fund - owns 25% of the land.

The company is profitable - and is aiming to list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, and so is likely to want to remain profitable for that purpose.

You only have to look at the prices it charges on the routes where there is no competition to see that those routes are up to twice what they perhaps should be looking at all other routes where they do have competition (or regulation?) A good example would be to Phuket, or to Chiang Mai.

I suspect the cost of leasing the land is fixed, probably at the level it was back in 2006 (?). Landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner. The few other airlines using the airport charge very similar prices to BA, either because of the high landing fees, or more likely, because they can charge higher. Or possibly, because BA does not allow them to significantly undercut them.

Edited October 5, 2011 by itishothere

[DrChopper]

but does anyone who bemoans them have any ingsight into this or do they just moan cos they don't like it?

Bangkok Airways is a private company, and therefore does not need to release detailed financial statements. It owns and manages the airport itself, and used to own the land. It now - through an investment fund - owns 25% of the land.

The company is profitable - and is aiming to list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, and so is likely to want to remain profitable for that purpose.

You only have to look at the prices it charges on the routes where there is no competition to see that those routes are up to twice what they perhaps should be looking at all other routes where they do have competition (or regulation?) A good example would be to Phuket, or to Chiang Mai.

I suspect the cost of leasing the land is fixed, probably at the level it was back in 2006 (?). Landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner. The few other airlines using the airport charge very similar prices to BA, either because of the high landing fees, or more likely, because they can charge higher. Or possibly, because BA does not allow them to significantly undercut them.

Thanks for that.

When you say landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner, do you mean BA or the company operating (or comprising) the fund?

Am I being simplistic to expect an airfare where they have no up front cost, capital commitment and associated costs to be cheaper than one where they have invested heavily in building the airport in the first place?

[Boater]

but does anyone who bemoans them have any ingsight into this or do they just moan cos they don't like it?

Bangkok Airways is a private company, and therefore does not need to release detailed financial statements. It owns and manages the airport itself, and used to own the land. It now - through an investment fund - owns 25% of the land.

The company is profitable - and is aiming to list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, and so is likely to want to remain profitable for that purpose.

You only have to look at the prices it charges on the routes where there is no competition to see that those routes are up to twice what they perhaps should be looking at all other routes where they do have competition (or regulation?) A good example would be to Phuket, or to Chiang Mai.

I suspect the cost of leasing the land is fixed, probably at the level it was back in 2006 (?). Landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner. The few other airlines using the airport charge very similar prices to BA, either because of the high landing fees, or more likely, because they can charge higher. Or possibly, because BA does not allow them to significantly undercut them.

Thanks for that.

When you say landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner, do you mean BA or the company operating (or comprising) the fund?

Am I being simplistic to expect an airfare where they have no up front cost, capital commitment and associated costs to be cheaper than one where they have invested heavily in building the airport in the first place?

but is the new airport even needed, what was wrong with the old one, it had charm to it !,

The new shopping area is a complete waste of space...

oh well

[itishothere]

Thanks for that.

When you say landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner, do you mean BA or the company operating (or comprising) the fund?

Am I being simplistic to expect an airfare where they have no up front cost, capital commitment and associated costs to be cheaper than one where they have invested heavily in building the airport in the first place?

BA the operating company will charge the landing fees. BA the operating company will pay rent on the land to the fund - of which it is a 25% shareholder.

Hmmmm ... to the second question on a day to day basis. The land/buildings have to be paid for (depreciated/amortized etc) and the investors behind this investment (banks etc) also need to be serviced. Most airlines don't have this expense. But over 20-30 years those costs should go down to nil. They invested heavily, but that airport is now an asset, which collects landing fees. Most other airlines don't have this income stream. So maybe swings and roundabouts here.

Generally I would have thought that every airline has similar costs (planes being the biggest, fuel the next I suppose) so on that basis they should be comparable.

My take is that BA is making money (no mean feat in this industry right now!) as a direct result of the higher fares it is charging on those routes where it is in the monopoly positition. All the other routes are performing as well as the other airlines in that area. Maybe a little bit worse as it does run fancy boutique lounges, appears to have more than enough staff, and does not have shareholders regulating pay etc. And possibly 'friends' in high places.

[DrChopper]

but does anyone who bemoans them have any ingsight into this or do they just moan cos they don't like it?

Bangkok Airways is a private company, and therefore does not need to release detailed financial statements. It owns and manages the airport itself, and used to own the land. It now - through an investment fund - owns 25% of the land.

The company is profitable - and is aiming to list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, and so is likely to want to remain profitable for that purpose.

You only have to look at the prices it charges on the routes where there is no competition to see that those routes are up to twice what they perhaps should be looking at all other routes where they do have competition (or regulation?) A good example would be to Phuket, or to Chiang Mai.

I suspect the cost of leasing the land is fixed, probably at the level it was back in 2006 (?). Landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner. The few other airlines using the airport charge very similar prices to BA, either because of the high landing fees, or more likely, because they can charge higher. Or possibly, because BA does not allow them to significantly undercut them.

Thanks for that.

When you say landing fees are charged by the company, not the landowner, do you mean BA or the company operating (or comprising) the fund?

Am I being simplistic to expect an airfare where they have no up front cost, capital commitment and associated costs to be cheaper than one where they have invested heavily in building the airport in the first place?

but is the new airport even needed, what was wrong with the old one, it had charm to it !,

The new shopping area is a complete waste of space...

oh well

Did BA not build / own the old one? Is it the same runway?

[itishothere]

Did BA not build / own the old one? Is it the same runway?

Yes and yes. They built new departure/arrival facilties. But they also charged a departure tax for years which was to pay for it I assumed. And as Boater says, a shopping mall which ALWAYS has more staff than customers.

[BlackWolf]

This stupid idea comes up every 3. years. And its go down at the same speed. This is only ment for pressing Bangkok Air to lower their prices, which the do every low season. Last year in November I had a evening plane from Bangkok to Samui and beside me there vere another 6 people. If there vere another airport there would be only 3 people. onboard. What a fantastic business.

[BangrakBob]

but is the new airport even needed, what was wrong with the old one, it had charm to it !,

The new shopping area is a complete waste of space...

oh well

yeah I loved the arriving at the old airport, it did have a lot more charm

[Tropicalevo]

As I have said elsewhere as a recent ex pat here I came with my eyes wide open on this issue, the prices are what they are and I will live with them.

It is difficult to respond to this without it becoming another Bandit Airways rant thread.

11 years ago, I was a recent ex-pat and I came with my eyes wide open on this issue. Prices were what they were. On average, 3,000 to 4,500 baht round trip to BKK.

Now - there are prices of 11,000 to 12,000 baht ONE WAY! oh, and the fuel surcharge - avfuel has gone down in price over the last few years, but on Samui - it goes up and never comes down.

I used to be a great believer in Bandit Airways. Food was good, service, price, everything was OK. Now it is just overpriced rip-offs. Any competition would kill this company and the airport, that's why it will never happen.

How will you feel when flights to BKK are 20,000 baht plus? It WILL happen.

Icing on the cake - flew with PG to PNP last year to see friends - got food poisoning on the flight back! Do not eat the fish curry.

[steelerian]

How will you feel when flights to BKK are 20,000 baht plus? It WILL happen.

I hear what you're saying, but prices can only go so high before people start to make alternative arranngements, ie car, train, bus.

[Boater]

How will you feel when flights to BKK are 20,000 baht plus? It WILL happen.

I hear what you're saying, but prices can only go so high before people start to make alternative arranngements, ie car, train, bus.

and do the people that run BKK air really care what people think ? , i mean look at the picture from there last board meeting

Edited October 5, 2011 by Boater

[smokie36]

How will you feel when flights to BKK are 20,000 baht plus? It WILL happen.

I hear what you're saying, but prices can only go so high before people start to make alternative arranngements, ie car, train, bus.

and do the people that run BKK air really care what people think ? , i mean look at the picture from there last board meeting

I got 2k Baht off the last fare by nicking their PG Tips!