Orient Thai Welcomes Return To Don Mueang

[webfact]

ORIENT THAI

Orient Thai welcomes return to Don Mueang

Bamrung Amnatcharoenrit

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Orient Thai Airlines Co says it welcomes the move to make Don Mueang Airport Bangkok's hub for low-cost airlines, saying it is ready to return to this base from Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Udom Tantiprasongchai, founder of Orient Thai and chairman of its advisory board, said it would start next week to resume some domestic flights from Don Mueang. Its charter flights will follow later, but need one or two months to make the move because tickets have been booked in advance.

Tassapon Bijleveld, chief executive officer of Asia Aviation, a listed operator of low-cost carrier AirAsia, was not available for comment yesterday. However, the company's head of public relations said it also welcomed the government's move regarding Don Mueang, which was initiated to reduce congestion at Suvarnabhumi. However, the company is still discussing the matter and will hold a press conference on its decision next week.

Currently only Nok Air, a local low-cost carrier, runs its operations at Don Mueang.

Recently, the government announced incentives for low-cost airlines to persuade them to return to Don Mueang. Among these are a 30-per-cent discount on landing and parking fees and a 10-per-cent discount on office rent. Incentives will be finalised by Airports of Thailand this week. Udom believes the government will offer fair incentives to airlines equally. Udom said his airline would not lose any benefits by moving back to Don Mueang. The carrier has faces competition at every airport it has worked in. Therefore, it will improve its service quality to increase its competitive advantage. As its next move, it will start informing Orient Thai passengers when to board at Don Mueang.

People working in the tourism industry believe the Don Mueang decision will give a boost to their sector, especially by increasing Bangkok's overall airport capacity and providing more convenience to passengers.

Krongkrit Hiranyakit, head of policy at the Tourism Council of Thailand, said it was a good idea to promote Don Mueang as a hub for low-cost airlines because the airport can welcome more than 25 million passengers annually. Clearly, it will help reduce congestion at Suvarnabhumi, which can practically serve only 45 million people a year, but now faces over-capacity at 55 million passengers. The congestion creates knock-on problems for the immigration process and air traffic from takeoff to landing.

The combined capacity of the two airports is 70 million passengers per year. Therefore, the Don Mueang move is in line with the government's policy to promote Thailand as a gateway to Asean tourism. Also, it will help secure future service in unexpected situations such as natural disasters or political chaos.

Having two airports is common in other countries' major cities and passengers can understand Thailand's situation. However, the government needs to build improve logistical connections between the two, industry observers say.

-- The Nation 2012-06-21

[Xonax]

The airlines are free to chose Don Muang airport, if they feel it will be profitable for them. But I have definitely used Air Asia for the very last time, if they move from Suvarnabhumi to Don Muang Airport!

[h90]

The airlines are free to chose Don Muang airport, if they feel it will be profitable for them. But I have definitely used Air Asia for the very last time, if they move from Suvarnabhumi to Don Muang Airport!

They were never free to chose. There is a lot politics involved...before blocking them, specially Air Asia, now pushing them.

[chainarong]

Instead of one hub where passengers enjoy all conveniences, we have two hubs, at a large distance apart, this in some cases , result in people flying international routes , having to stay a night/Day in Bkk, is this a good or a bad design model of what not to do in a modern concept plan?

[FarangTalk]

If you fly Orient Thai you need your head examined. They are responisble for the cover up of the 1-2-Go crash in Phuket.

[FarangTalk]

Having two airports is common in other countries' major cities

Not just after the construction of a new multi-billion airport it isn't.

One of the reasons Suvarnabhumi was built was to handle additional traffic due to rising tourist numbers and passengers well into the distant future.

[Sydebolle]

Instead of one hub where passengers enjoy all conveniences, we have two hubs, at a large distance apart, this in some cases , result in people flying international routes , having to stay a night/Day in Bkk, is this a good or a bad design model of what not to do in a modern concept plan?

Well, no - this is not quite what will happen. Bangkok always shared the tremendous advantage of being relatively close to the city centre and was a one-hub airport like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong.

For transititing though a two-airport hub is ALWAYS a disadvantage and is avoided when possible. I avoid transiting New York due to its four or five airports, Milan is another example. Bangkok will simply be losing transit transit to neighbouring airports which are all much more efficient, effective and reliable. Losers will be the ground handling staff and providers (catering and handlers) ... and not to forget ...... the planet's most corrupt and scam-infested duty free emporium.

Thailand has been mismanaged grossly over the last six years by a never-ending supply of clowns, ignorants and idiots. Let the Thais handle is their way, after all it is their country and aerodrome infrastructure and future will tell them right from wrong. And transit passengers HAVE an option; except remote spots like Nakorn Phanom, Ubol Ratchathani and Mae Hong Son you can reach many other Thai destinations directly from outside where outsiders will make the money. Actually quite simple, isn't it?

[FarangTalk]

For transititing though a two-airport hub is ALWAYS a disadvantage and is avoided when possible.

Absolutely.

Singapore every time for me when I transit through SEA, it simply cannot be beaten in the region. Even layovers of several hours or more pass quickly and are hassle free. I can only imagine being stuck in Suvarnabhumi on transit let alone having to change airports in Bangkok. A total nightmare.

[3SoiDogNight]

Why are people complaining? For those that fly to BKK and need to connect to Chiang Mai, Phuket and other destinations can still do so. Thai Airways connects to all of those destinations, so no need to go across town to Don Muang.

Also, I've never found Air Asia to be much of a bargain anyway.

I'm glad to see Don Muang being put to use.

[chainarong]

Instead of one hub where passengers enjoy all conveniences, we have two hubs, at a large distance apart, this in some cases , result in people flying international routes , having to stay a night/Day in Bkk, is this a good or a bad design model of what not to do in a modern concept plan?

Well, no - this is not quite what will happen. Bangkok always shared the tremendous advantage of being relatively close to the city centre and was a one-hub airport like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong.

For transititing though a two-airport hub is ALWAYS a disadvantage and is avoided when possible. I avoid transiting New York due to its four or five airports, Milan is another example. Bangkok will simply be losing transit transit to neighbouring airports which are all much more efficient, effective and reliable. Losers will be the ground handling staff and providers (catering and handlers) ... and not to forget ...... the planet's most corrupt and scam-infested duty free emporium.

Thailand has been mismanaged grossly over the last six years by a never-ending supply of clowns, ignorants and idiots. Let the Thais handle is their way, after all it is their country and aerodrome infrastructure and future will tell them right from wrong. And transit passengers HAVE an option; except remote spots like Nakorn Phanom, Ubol Ratchathani and Mae Hong Son you can reach many other Thai destinations directly from outside where outsiders will make the money. Actually quite simple, isn't it?

Yeah I agree, I generaly have family pick up and drive to Phitsanulok, because after arr at Bkk it is a pain in the rear to catch a Nok Air flight, due to my International flight arrival times Ex perth, I have to wait till the next day. Singapore is the best airport I'd say in the world.

[gk10002000]

Instead of one hub where passengers enjoy all conveniences, we have two hubs, at a large distance apart, this in some cases , result in people flying international routes , having to stay a night/Day in Bkk, is this a good or a bad design model of what not to do in a modern concept plan?

Yes. reminds me of the careful and detailed plannng Los Angeles California did when they build the trains that do NOT go all the way to the airport LAX! You get dropped off about 5 miles away in Manhattan or Redondo Beach. Then you can hobble over to a bus, or take a taxi. Just horribly inconvenient. I was told one of the main reasons is the taxis, and shuttle van companies had so much clout because of the lost business they claimed they would experience if people could transit directly from the airport to Mass Transit system. Well gee, that is what a government should provide! I am aware of many major European cities that have rail links going right into them in a proper manner.

[Rimmer]

Libellous post removed

[chainarong]

Instead of one hub where passengers enjoy all conveniences, we have two hubs, at a large distance apart, this in some cases , result in people flying international routes , having to stay a night/Day in Bkk, is this a good or a bad design model of what not to do in a modern concept plan?

Yes. reminds me of the careful and detailed plannng Los Angeles California did when they build the trains that do NOT go all the way to the airport LAX! You get dropped off about 5 miles away in Manhattan or Redondo Beach. Then you can hobble over to a bus, or take a taxi. Just horribly inconvenient. I was told one of the main reasons is the taxis, and shuttle van companies had so much clout because of the lost business they claimed they would experience if people could transit directly from the airport to Mass Transit system. Well gee, that is what a government should provide! I am aware of many major European cities that have rail links going right into them in a proper manner.

Yeah, You can see there's brain dead where ever you go or the whats in it for me syndrome, thinking outside the square takes alittle more time.

[zakk9]

Air Asia will, if they move, be the big loser here as will their passengers. Getting to Swampy is easy and cheap by train and you know when you'll arrive at the airport. I believe AA passengers are typically cost concious people that go for parctical, efficient solutions, whcih is what AA at Swampy has been up until now. With Don Mueang which has no predictable public transport, neither to downtown Bangkok nor to Swampy, one hour extra will have to be calculated into the travel schedule plus the extra expense of a long taxi ride. Being a frequent traveller with Air Asia, I'm not thrilled to say the least.

The situation could at least partly be solved by running a shuttle train between Don Mueang and Bang Sue where there's an MRT station. I don't hold my breath though, at least not for then first 5 years or so. And while the newspapers write about this move as if it was a major success and a positive development for air traffic through Bangkok, it's exactly the opposite; a final proof of how corruption and planning failures are killing what aimed to be one of the major air transport hubs of SE Asia. As others have correctly pointed out: That role is now reserved for Singapore and HK.

[Debothai]

Air Asia is the principal contributor for the congestion at Suvarnabhumi. They must be removed along with the other low cost airlines to Don Muang. For those who need connecting flights Thai can do that to most important destinations. In fact some international airlines should also consider adding Don Muang to their list of destinations. It is no good having an airport under-utilized when the new airport is filled to the brink by the low cost passengers. In Dubai, all low cost airlines use a dedicated terminal and are soon to be moved to the new Jebel Ali Airport which is much further away than Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi.

I am under the impression that most negative comments in this forum regarding this subject come from passengers who are used to using Air Asia due to the convenient prices and connections with international destinations. However in the interest of the success of air travel in Thailand and the proper use of the resources available, low cost airlines should not be at Suvarnabhumi, but at Don Muang. I predict that Air Asia will try to resist this and it will be seen soon.

[garrya]

If you fly Orient Thai you need your head examined. They are responisble for the cover up of the 1-2-Go crash in Phuket.

If we follow your logic then we will never fly again as there is no airline in the world without some crash backgrounds. Examples: Air France, KLM, American et cetera.

Ohh, and we don't take cars as they are responsible for many many deaths on the roads.

[SOEYCHANLOY]

Bla bla bla bla..... Suwarnabum was designed with the ass not with the brain. Sibce 2 years it is already fast collapsed. Why the deciders didn't make it bigger and better and overall EFFICIENT? No.... Now they push the Companies one after one to Don Mueang....

Good idea for update Suwarnabum... Again a lot of millions going to the pockets of corrupted ones....

Sent from my GT-S5830T using Thaivisa Connect App

[zakk9]

Air Asia is the principal contributor for the congestion at Suvarnabhumi. They must be removed along with the other low cost airlines to Don Muang. For those who need connecting flights Thai can do that to most important destinations. In fact some international airlines should also consider adding Don Muang to their list of destinations. It is no good having an airport under-utilized when the new airport is filled to the brink by the low cost passengers. In Dubai, all low cost airlines use a dedicated terminal and are soon to be moved to the new Jebel Ali Airport which is much further away than Don Muang and Suvarnabhumi.

I am under the impression that most negative comments in this forum regarding this subject come from passengers who are used to using Air Asia due to the convenient prices and connections with international destinations. However in the interest of the success of air travel in Thailand and the proper use of the resources available, low cost airlines should not be at Suvarnabhumi, but at Don Muang. I predict that Air Asia will try to resist this and it will be seen soon.

This is putting the whole situation upside down. The whole point with the new airport was to have enough room for all airlines. Don Mueang was supposed to be closed down and Swampy built out as needed. Don Mueang is situated in the middle of a densly populated area, has no workeable public transport, runways too close together to be operated safely in parallell, is flood prone etc. All other cities in SE Asia have managed to build airports that can handle all the traffic except Bangkok which has the newest one.

Although one can claim that users of low cost airlines should pay the price using the most inconvenient airport, there's nothing to gain for the Thai government. It's not cheaper to run two airports than one. To say that Air Asia is the biggest contributor to the congestion at Swampy makes no sensce either. That would be the biggest operator, Thai Airways. But the real reason for the problem is that the planned stage 2 hasn't been built yet. The end result is a loss for all involved.

The least they could do is to let the market decide what airlines will move and what airlines won't by offering considerably lower cost at Don Mueang. Interestingly, Air Asia has chosen to stay at one of the main terminals in Singapore in spite of what I asume must be higher costs.

I see btw. that Air Berlin is on the list of airlines that they want to move. If they do that, that means intercontinental flights as well from Don Mueang. I assume that Norwegian Airlines, who will start flying between Bangkok and Scandinavia starting next year will also have to operate from the old airport, placing both of them at a disadvantage towards their main competitor, Thai Airways which offers return tickets including taxes for as low as the equivalent of THB 25,000 from Europe (just had visitors returning to Europe on a ticket that was at that price).