whybother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 We recently and are still in the process of having a flood with international ramifications. A part of the problem was that land that used to retain some of the water was turned into a airport and a levee built around it. Now some so called expert is saying to enlarge the airport. Yes there is a problem with quick and easily attainable transport between the two for tourists who are new to Thailand. But for many travelers in Thailand DM is ideal. Swampy has interconnecting flights to any where in Thailand. They may be a bit more expensive. But for the travelers with in Thailand DM is OK and it takes some of the pressure off of that big barn on swampy. Besides DM could be used for freight and the room it takes up in swampy used for the improved passenger service. Swampy has all the land it needs for an extra terminal and runway. It is in the original plans for a phased development. It will be built. It's just a matter of when. So why spend money on DM when it's going to be moth balled anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anterian Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 You forgot London City and Luton- If London can support LHR/STN/LCY/LGW/LTN business is business more is better in my opinion There's also Saaaafend and Biggin Hill which also handles London flights. No major city in the world can operate on one airport, impossible. The idea of Don Muang should be to house the likes of Air Asia, Nok Air etc. similar to Stansted in London. It's not rocket surgery..!!! And if you need to travel from Stansted to Gatwick it is twice as complicated and much more expensive than Swampy to DM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NxaiPan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Don Muang is also a RTAF base, Should they shift to Swampy as well? So Don Mueang reverts to being a cargo hub, RTAF station and an emergency alternative for BKK. Not such a bad option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anterian Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Absolute nonsense. How can a major travel hub such as BKK operate with just one airport..!! London has 6 airports, New York has 3 and they are not enough. This guy is an idiot..!! Yes indeed, fellow git; amazing how idiots thrive & rise, is it not? Dear old Don Muang was a lovely airport. Rail travel neatly integrated & e/thing within easy reach; nip across the overpass for street chicken & rice for 100B, plus a beer for 40B. The real trouble was, it was not a glorified market for over-priced tourist junk, operated by spivs, with an airport attached - like Heathrow - hence Swampy. Before they put pen to paper, I suggest the planners take a trip to Heathrow to discover how NOT to do it. What a ruddy mess. It's so vast, it has a weird, circular train service round the far-flung terminals. Lost passengers get on it & keep going round till they lose the will to live. At least staff remove their skeletons. H/row is stiff with 'security'. Pity the bruisers can't protect the passengers from the cab pirates - it was $100 for the cab to London, just 15 miles away (last time I was unlucky enuf to be there). What a joy it was to get back to sunny, smiling, relaxed Thailand. I wanted to do a Pope & kiss the tarmac. Gatwick?! Don't get me started on that! Old Git Tom Heathrow is everything that an airport should not be! As you say security is way over the top, parking fees are extortionate, duty free is a joke, ASDA is cheaper. Gatwick is bad but heavenly in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NxaiPan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Absolute nonsense. How can a major travel hub such as BKK operate with just one airport..!! London has 6 airports, New York has 3 and they are not enough. This guy is an idiot..!! Yes indeed, fellow git; amazing how idiots thrive & rise, is it not? Dear old Don Muang was a lovely airport. Rail travel neatly integrated & e/thing within easy reach; nip across the overpass for street chicken & rice for 100B, plus a beer for 40B. The real trouble was, it was not a glorified market for over-priced tourist junk, operated by spivs, with an airport attached - like Heathrow - hence Swampy. Before they put pen to paper, I suggest the planners take a trip to Heathrow to discover how NOT to do it. What a ruddy mess. It's so vast, it has a weird, circular train service round the far-flung terminals. Lost passengers get on it & keep going round till they lose the will to live. At least staff remove their skeletons. H/row is stiff with 'security'. Pity the bruisers can't protect the passengers from the cab pirates - it was $100 for the cab to London, just 15 miles away (last time I was unlucky enuf to be there). What a joy it was to get back to sunny, smiling, relaxed Thailand. I wanted to do a Pope & kiss the tarmac. Gatwick?! Don't get me started on that! Old Git Tom LHR and its disastrous, piecemeal development (what other major airport has its terminal buildings inside the runways and its main access route being a narrow tunnel under said runways?), explains why London needs LHR plus LGW/LCY/STN/LTN. Now that an extra runway has been ruled out the physical constraints mean that London cannot have a single, decent airport. Such a shame that the UK did not do a Schipol or Frankfurt as instead you now need multiple airports with all the interconnection problems, taking up more land and blighting more people's lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjaak327 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 You forgot London City and Luton- If London can support LHR/STN/LCY/LGW/LTN business is business more is better in my opinion There's also Saaaafend and Biggin Hill which also handles London flights. No major city in the world can operate on one airport, impossible. The idea of Don Muang should be to house the likes of Air Asia, Nok Air etc. similar to Stansted in London. It's not rocket surgery..!!! In real life however, more major cities make due with just one airport, then there are cities having multiple airports. Dmk is a dump, it is really showing its age and is inconvenient for any traveller who is looking for connecting flights. I am pretty certain that Air Asia would not want to move to dmk, just as Thai Airways abandoned it due to rising costs. There is no reason to keep it open. Let alone spend a lot of money refurbishing it. Bkk can easily handle the volume. I used to fly Nok domestically, not anymore, I look for options, and connecting flights, at Dmk I usually have just one options, and that is to taxi to Bkk, I therefore choose an airline which doesn't require me tot taxi in between flights. Dmk has two airlines, Bkk the rest, no rockect science indeed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 We recently and are still in the process of having a flood with international ramifications. A part of the problem was that land that used to retain some of the water was turned into a airport and a levee built around it. Now some so called expert is saying to enlarge the airport. Yes there is a problem with quick and easily attainable transport between the two for tourists who are new to Thailand. But for many travelers in Thailand DM is ideal. Swampy has interconnecting flights to any where in Thailand. They may be a bit more expensive. But for the travelers with in Thailand DM is OK and it takes some of the pressure off of that big barn on swampy. Besides DM could be used for freight and the room it takes up in swampy used for the improved passenger service. Swampy has all the land it needs for an extra terminal and runway. It is in the original plans for a phased development. It will be built. It's just a matter of when. So why spend money on DM when it's going to be moth balled anyway? Return the land to the original state and lesson the damage of future floods. Are they going to build another terminal on it for the strictly domestic flights or just add them into the existing terminal which is all ready to large for convenient movement of passengers particularly those with handicap difficulties. If memories serves me rite all ready there are some flights where you unload passengers on the tarmac. Not sure of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaikahuna Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Amen to that! It was originally meant to be the only international & domestic hub for Bangkok but due to operational, structural and material problems, they had to reopen DM. It is a big hassle for international travelers especially first time visitors to have to navigate their way through this maze of finally getting to a taxi or whatever to get them to DM. Anyway hopefully when the powers that be, hear that loud popping noise when pulling their heads out of their fundaments, will see the light. First and foremost, DM is a Royal Thai Air Force Base. It exists and existed as a commercial airport purely form an economical standpoint. Why should they build an international airport when they have a perfectly good, underused air force facility. This worked and worked well for decades until expansion was no longer an option and the RTAF was not going to give up the base. When "the swamp" was opened several years ago the main goal was to turn DM back over as a military / diplomatic airdrome. With all the turmoil that has existed here in the last 6 years that goal has not and is like not to be accomplished. As for the powers that be pulling their heads loose....don't hold your breath, you may turn blue in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givenall Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Perhaps Herr Mattschnigg has been reading the comments on TV, concerning the expensive reconditioning of DMK, compared with expanding facilities & finally starting on a new LCC-terminal at Swampy ? It's only common-sense really. Yeah but you know the Thai government does what they do the best and it is toscrew up an opportunity for the Thai nation, and not necessarily for themself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaiUan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Funny how everybody is still making use of rationality and economics when everybody knows at the same time that none of these notions will be used to take the decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 We recently and are still in the process of having a flood with international ramifications. A part of the problem was that land that used to retain some of the water was turned into a airport and a levee built around it. Now some so called expert is saying to enlarge the airport. Yes there is a problem with quick and easily attainable transport between the two for tourists who are new to Thailand. But for many travelers in Thailand DM is ideal. Swampy has interconnecting flights to any where in Thailand. They may be a bit more expensive. But for the travelers with in Thailand DM is OK and it takes some of the pressure off of that big barn on swampy. Besides DM could be used for freight and the room it takes up in swampy used for the improved passenger service. Swampy has all the land it needs for an extra terminal and runway. It is in the original plans for a phased development. It will be built. It's just a matter of when. So why spend money on DM when it's going to be moth balled anyway? Return the land to the original state and lesson the damage of future floods. Are they going to build another terminal on it for the strictly domestic flights or just add them into the existing terminal which is all ready to large for convenient movement of passengers particularly those with handicap difficulties. If memories serves me rite all ready there are some flights where you unload passengers on the tarmac. Not sure of that. The land for the second terminal is in between the two existing runways, so it would be a bit difficult to "return it to its original state". The second terminal will be separate from the existing terminal and joined by an (the?) underground train. The cost was budgeted at costing 600 mil baht (most likely closer to 1 bil now). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvarnabhumi_Airport#Specifications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maseratimartin Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 DM has shown now that it is in flood area and as so I would not spend any more money in such project. You do not need more airports....what a stupid comment! It is much better to develop one airport, but do it right! Sure you need many airports if you started with wrong planing and run out of space. Since when London would be an example on how to do things...? They even cannot run their own railways (need HK MTR)... Suvarnabhumi A. was absolutly fine when DM was under water....so seems like they at least did something good when planing the new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David48 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It makes huge sense to have airlines in a single location. Hubs need feeder routes and a LCC terminal at BKK similar to KUL would be the best of all world's for both airlines and passengers. I can appreciate the analogy with combining the LCCT (Low Cost Carrier Terminal) near / adjacent / adjoining Suvarnabhumi ... BUT I hope that they resolve issues like integrating the transport links between the Airport and Bangkok. The LCCC at KL certainly has not addressed transport intergration and until fairly recently, if a passenger was on a connecting flight through the KL LCCT you actually had to 'enter' Malaysia, immigration, baggage collection ... the whole shooting match and then 'depart Malaysia again to continue on the next leg of your flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flap48 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 IATA talks nonsense. if a natural catastrophe affects Suvarnabhumi area, it will be useful to have Don Mueang. It would not only be useful, it would be critical, but most Thai's are either to sutipd, don't want to know, can't be told, how much in it for me?, or all four. Non of us or our grandchildren will ever see or hear of the day when Thais will take outside advice, because it shows that they don't know and "oh god" the loss of face is just too much, or there is not enough kick back in it for them. TIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Thank you IATA for your insight, are you suggesting the same applies to London, New York, Paris, Los Angeles, Madrid, Brussels, Moscow, Chicago and what about all the hype behind IATA endorsing Haneda ? If Heathrow was the only London airport would Ryanair or Easyjet exist ????? Airlines and airports meet at a price point that works and if there is passenger demand then what is wrong with more options ? Not quite the same thing, William! But why listen to IATA? What do they know about international air travel? I'm sure you know so much more! Edited December 13, 2011 by bigbamboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huma79 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 IATA is Farang. Why can't AOT, which is Thai, look after their domestic problem. An International airport is not a domestic problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flap48 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 If any emergency or disaster were to befall Swampy airport, D.M. would not only be useful, it would be critical and even an advanced case of Alzimers would be able to see that !!! however as Thai's can't be told anything because they may lose face "god forbid" and or the size of the kickback is not large enough, then it won't be done. Non of us or our grandchildren will live to see the day when loss of face and graft will cease to be major obstacles in this beautiful country. TIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It makes huge sense to have airlines in a single location. Hubs need feeder routes and a LCC terminal at BKK similar to KUL would be the best of all world's for both airlines and passengers. I can appreciate the analogy with combining the LCCT (Low Cost Carrier Terminal) near / adjacent / adjoining Suvarnabhumi ... BUT I hope that they resolve issues like integrating the transport links between the Airport and Bangkok. The LCCC at KL certainly has not addressed transport intergration and until fairly recently, if a passenger was on a connecting flight through the KL LCCT you actually had to 'enter' Malaysia, immigration, baggage collection ... the whole shooting match and then 'depart Malaysia again to continue on the next leg of your flight. I don't think DM has any international flights, so I don't know what plans they have for the Suvarnabhumi LCCT to handle international flights. The transport from the Airport to Bangkok is pretty much as integrated as it's going to get. The Airport Link is fine except for frequency and some access issues to be sorted out at Makkasan (no, I don't want to derail this thread with the pros and cons of the airport link.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 If any emergency or disaster were to befall Swampy airport, D.M. would not only be useful, it would be critical and even an advanced case of Alzimers would be able to see that !!! however as Thai's can't be told anything because they may lose face "god forbid" and or the size of the kickback is not large enough, then it won't be done. Non of us or our grandchildren will live to see the day when loss of face and graft will cease to be major obstacles in this beautiful country. TIT I don't think they build "second" airports for "Just In Case" purposes. I don't even think a city with multiple international airports would cope if one of the airports was to shut down as DM did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NxaiPan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Thank you IATA for your insight, are you suggesting the same applies to London, New York, Paris, Los Angeles, Madrid, Brussels, Moscow, Chicago and what about all the hype behind IATA endorsing Haneda ? If Heathrow was the only London airport would Ryanair or Easyjet exist ????? Airlines and airports meet at a price point that works and if there is passenger demand then what is wrong with more options ? Not quite the same thing, William! But why listen to IATA? What do they know about international air travel? I'm sure you know so much more! Also Madrid-Barajas is the sole airport for Madrid. Or if we switch Heathrow for KUL, we get a different point of view: "If KUL was the only Kuala Lumpur airport would Air Asia exist?" Sole airports do not exclude the possibility of LCCs if there are differentiated/cheaper facilities available as in KUL's LCCT. Hopefully this is what BKK will provide next for Air Asia, Nok, Orient Thai, Lion, Jetstar etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tragickingdom Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It seems to be fashion that every interest group is interfering in politics. Ratings agencies, Travel Boys they all want to take the decisions themselves but do not bear the costs. What if IATA told the same to the US government of the English government about London or to the French? They would probably get the answer that they do need to mind their own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disinto Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Being a retired airline professional with 32 years in the industry,it is hilarious to read some of the comments here. It's like being back at work at the airport and listening to the moronic comments of passengers again.Morons. Agreed. It's usually priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footloose1949 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I can see the benefits for 2 airports near BKK, one for passengers, (Swampy) the other for freight etc for Thailand's manufacturers, but I'm guessing DM would cost more to rebuild/repair/upgrade than a completely new one, better situated to cater for Thailand's manufacturing base, importers and exporters. I'm guessing DM certainly would make an excellent distribution 'hub' for moving goods in and out of the centre of BKK though, by upgrading it's old railway links. Finish the Sky-train connection to DM first, and that would take the passengers off the railway, which could then via a new passenger terminal station at DM, enable passengers to transfer onto the existing old railway network, taking them elsewhere in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moskito Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 since when they listen to something logical? they will do what THEY want to do....this is Sparta...sry TiT :jap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 An off-topic, inflammatory troll post has been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notmyself Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 since when they listen to something logical? they will do what THEY want to do....this is Sparta...sry TiT :jap: Don't know if I am in a very jolly mood today but 'this is Sparta' kept me laughing for ages. Perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalangBaa Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Does this mean that Suvarnabhumi is going to close and they're finally going to build the really good airport that Thailand needs to secure the future of its tourism and international trading? I hope so. That airport is unfit for purpose, and don't even mention Don Muang, which should be closed immediately and the land sold for upscale condominiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanu Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Keep DMK, and destroy the uggly new airport and it will be a pleasure to flight to BKK again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) It seems to be fashion that every interest group is interfering in politics. Ratings agencies, Travel Boys they all want to take the decisions themselves but do not bear the costs. What if IATA told the same to the US government of the English government about London or to the French? They would probably get the answer that they do need to mind their own business. Interest groups and business groups always call on governments to do things in their interest. That's the main reason that they exist. Edited December 13, 2011 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToffeEFCpower Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Being a retired airline professional with 32 years in the industry,it is hilarious to read some of the comments here. It's like being back at work at the airport and listening to the moronic comments of passengers again.Morons. You wouldn't have lasted 32 minutes at any airport let alone 32 years if I was your boss. Your attitude stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now