Airport Departure Tax To Be Increased To 700 Baht

[womble]

and thats precisely my point, so often in Thailand prices are raised for no reason other than because they can. Not because the funds are being used for bringing in improvements. It's not that I think the extra 200 baht will have any difference on arrivals, it won't, but the attitude which is applied to many aspects of this airport combined may well do.

I think many of you are completley missing the point, it's not about the 200 baht increase, that is only a small but still relavant part of the increased costs to the consumer with no benefits that I can see other than a shiny new building.

Big deal!

The duty free will still be run by the same company that charges extortionate prices. There are so many things here that are not good news for the consumer.

Please can someone who disagrees compile a comprehensive list of positives to the consumers that out wiegh that negatives and increased costs.

It seems a lot of you cannot see where this is going, 200 baht is not much, but with other costs to the airlines which makes non sense eigher, that means ticket prices will have to rise. In all likley hood many airlines will switch to other destinations and stop promoting thailand as a destination as it's simply not economically viable to them.

It could have massive implications to the success of the airport and it seems those incharge are eigher blind or because they have skimmed off so much $ and will continue to be able to skim more they will not change it for the benefit of consumers and the country as a whole.

"They'll keep raising it until folks have a problem with 'the money and NOT just the principle of it'."

Yes and as so often is the case in Thailand they may well end up 'killing the Golden Goose'. And it's no laughing matter, particualry if you are employed in the airport or the tourist industry, less tourists means less jobs, which will have an effect on the whole economy. Whilst at the same time those at the top will still be skimming off millions every year at the expense of the common man.

Any cost increases to airlines will be passed onto the passenger, any additional costs paid by the passenger themselves added to that could amke the trip seem too expensive when compared to similar destinations.

You need to look at the full picture not just the 200 baht.

Edited August 30, 2006 by womble

[Papa_Lazarou]

This is OLD OLD news that the tax was going up to THB 700. AOT has this arrangement agreed for YEARS. The increase has been discussed on Thaivisa aeons ago.

If they included the tax in the ticket price, (like Singapore) none of you would even notice.

In Indonesia Departure (called 'fiscal') Tax for Indonesians travelling overseas at the airport is THB 4000. So you're lucky.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Papa_Lazarou

[Jeddah Jo]

Womble, you keep using KLIA as an example, have you been there recently? It is massive but the problem is it seems largely deserted. BA stopped flying there a while ago and as a tourist destination KL just does not compete with Bangkok.

People will not change their travel plans based on a few dollars of airport tax.

As for your figures regarding landing costs for 747s. You quoted a figure of 10% of total costs being for turnaround fees which is clearly nonsense. Consider a 747 flying from London to Bangkok. 350 people each paying say a very conservative 500GBP per seat. That is gross revenue of 175,000GBP to the airline. Total landing costs of 1,600GBP (114,000THB) do not add up to 10% of total costs.

[womble]

I didn't do the Maths, but that bangkok post so what do you expect.

yeah people won't change their plans for a few $, but the fact remains that if ticket prices go up too due to other price rises, then people may well stop coming.

I havn't been to KL for a while, but I have been to singapore and hong kong and those airports are extremely busy and also extremely well run and cheaper than the new airport will be.

[samran]

It's not the amount, it's the principle. At what level does a raise become unacceptable, we have to draw limits somewhere.

And the principal is user pays. The 700baht you pay (as I already have mentioned) doesn't even cover the costs of the services that are ultimately provided to an average passenger.

At what point does the raise become unacceptable? When in the case of a monopoly asset such as an airport, that point is reached when the PSC is simply a form of price gouging. We are far from that point.

As I have said before, the PSC is being held artifically low, effectively subsidised by the Thai taxpayer (ie people who will never fly, can probably least afford to pay it).

There is a robust and transparent pricing model out there. But to apply it would have raised even louder howls of 'Thailand is ripping us off' from certain members of this board.

erm.........

Do you have any stats to back up your argument?

If it doesn't cover the costs, how much are tax payers paying?

If tax payers are paying for this, why are they not paying the overtime for immigration officers?

Yes an airport is a monopoly asset, but it's demand is not inelastic, when prices become overal too high, people will go elsewhere. This airport is in huge danger of loosing out to HK, KL and Singapore. I'm not just talking about the 700 baht here, i'm talking about costs for everything from landing fees to higher taxi fares and inconvenience from lousey transport options.

Show us you pricing model then, hot air is of no interest to me or others on this forum that prefer arguments backed up by sources and statistics.

Womble, I appreciate where you are coming from. This is a board is mainly full of anonymous people. All I can say is I was an advisor on the whole process. With which organisation I can’t say. I’m an economist, I’ll tell you that much. The report and the calculations, are sitting on my shelf at home. But I can’t divulge that information as it is commercially confidential. Lets just leave it at that, and hopefully you can take me at my word.

[Heng]

and thats precisely my point, so often in Thailand prices are raised for no reason other than because they can.

That's business. That's why you can find plain white socks at Saks 5th Avenue for $X0 a pair.

Please can someone who disagrees compile a comprehensive list of positives to the consumers that out wiegh that negatives and increased costs.

A business operation might rank the stakeholders as #1 (getting the most benefit) and consumers as #2 (getting some benefit.... "big deal" as you say).

"They'll keep raising it until folks have a problem with 'the money and NOT just the principle of it'."

Yes and as so often is the case in Thailand they may well end up 'killing the Golden Goose'.

What businesses have gone under by increasing their profit margins to the point that the consumers completely abandoned that business?

[dezeure]

Didn't AOT just announce profits of Baht 2 billion and some change?

shhhhhh....

People aren't supposed to know about that...

BANGKOK, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Airports of Thailand PCL (AOT), Thailand's main airport operator, said on Wednesday its third-quarter net profit jumped 171 percent, topping analyst forecasts. AOT said in a statement it made a net profit of 2.1 billion baht (US$56.18 million).

Oops, guess you blew it there... now everyone knows. But if you divide the 56m USD into "the amount of officials working there" then the operating profit percentage per corrupt person is very small and that explains why there is a need to increase the fee... not that there will be any additional services provided...

You do know that German cars are expensive in Thailand right?

[zink]

About connecting passengers: Airlines pay landing fees to the airport each time they land, thus connecting passengers are also bringing income to the aiport. That's why airports want to achieve "hub" status. While it's true that connecting passengers don't pay passenger service charge, you must consider that they using less airport's resources. For example they don't pass immigration while normal passengers pass twice through it and they don't use baggage claim/check in facilities. In addition, connecting passengers pay landing fees twice (via airline).

Some airports have noticed that they can make lot of money from non-aviation related sources. Singapore and Hong Kong airports are prime examples of this, according to the Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Changi_Airport ): "The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore derives 60% of its total annual revenue (over US$500 million in the year ended March 2005) from non-aeronautical sources, with 30% from commercial space rental and a percentage of sale receipts. Liquor and perfumes are particularly popular, accounting for over half of total retail sales, followed by watches and tobacco products."

IATA has mentioned several times that Thailand should do something similar with the new airport instead of raising fees: allocate more space for businesses, attract businesses and encourage competition between them. In the long run this would benefit both passengers (who would need to pay lower fees and will have more shopping choises) and the airport (who will get more money). Guess what happened? King Power Duty Free will have a monopoly for duty free sales at the new airport... No wonder that the new aiport will charge higher landing fees than Singapore's airport, even though cost of labor is much higher in Singapore...

BTW: Here are the summary of various fees in Singapore (1 SGD = 23.8B):

- Passenger service charge (included in ticket's price): 21 SGD = 500B

- Limousine service: 35 SGD = 833B

- 6-seater airport shuttle to the center and most hotels: 7 SGD = 167B

- MRT to the center: 1.4 SGD = 33B

Suddenly, it becomes quite hard to justify various costs at the new Bangkok airport considering that the overall level of prices is higher in Singapore...

[bander]

Many falangs want to leave LOS and it's not because of the 200 bath increase in airport tax.

[Alreadyinuse]

I think it will discourage a few more people from leaving when the visa has run out. It will certainly make the newly found fiancé think about funding his departure when the money has run out.

Well if you are a tourist and you dont have enough money for the return trip of 700 Baht even if it went up to 1000 Baht you should have thought about that at your last barvisit. Do anyone in this forum travel that way at all, no matter destination?

We are talking about an increase of 200 Baht for crying out loud. A little bit over a drink at the bar.

If you are travelling in duty, save the reciept and leave upon return to the finance dept.

Careful now ..... you are deliberatly bringing this thread back to being On Topic!

Mmm, and may I add I did it on purpose.. Its just that how many International trips does people do thatc they have to bear themselves? Cant be that many, right?

If one are on such a tight budget maybe that person is displayed on the next Britmav posting, sitting in the stair to the Skytrain, with a poster.

[george]

On popular demand we have started a new forum branch,

Suvarnabhumi Airport Forum

for more topics about our new Airport!

[gbswales]

in fact you DID say you were a tourist and then retract it ...

no i didn't please read my first two posts properly. In the first one I mentioned tourists being treated badly, and in the second post I said "foriegners/tourists", all expats living here in Thailand can be classed as foriegners can they not? Also both of my posts were before you said anything about me calling myself a tourist, I had already used foriegner/tourist before you even said that.

6km for a taxi? no

Well I took that from a post by someone else who was quoting the nation newspaper as the source, if the article or poster is wrong then I appologise for not using better sources, maybe you could enlighten me as to the correct distance if my source is wrong.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...1855&st=240

"By the way... Did you read Nation last week end ?

They wrote a piece about Suvarnabbhumi.

They confirmed something that i've heard before : passengers will have to take a shuttle bus, from the terminal, in order to go to the taxis station, 6 km away

Train? Light rail is on its way!

This airport was first on it's way 50 years ago, don't you think it would be better to have it ready when the airport was opening?

whinge much?

Yes I do whinge from time to time, we all do.

By the way, here's a couple of examples of you being a moany queen!

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=18223&hl=[/b]

"I am constantly amazed by the farang that lie about their ages on gay.com. They talk with guys promising dates excitement etc when they get to Thailand and then pooftah ... they get here and the profile age of 42 turns out to be a real age of 58+.

Yes, Thai men are quite tolerant of older men. They will happily go out on a date (for the most part) with OLD men. Every one I know that has met either of the 2 guys in specific that I am referring to has pretty much walked away from the meeting. Not because of the man's age. The reason they cited was that the guy was a liar. Couldn't tell the truth about a simple thing so why should he be trusted with matters of the heart?

Any ideas? or comments?"

The above is an example of you having a whinge and then asking for other peoples opinions similar to how I did myself, only the subject matter is slightly different!

another example

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=58612&hl=

May I also point out that you have been taken to task by moderators before for generally being bitchy and causing problems with people for no reason at all.

If you want to have a go at my posts at least get your fact straight, then you can reply by PM as moderators have told you to do before when you want to be a troublemaker. That way I can just delete them and not have to reply to defend myself against posts by yourself that are not based on fact.

I put it to you that you are a bored moany old queen with nothing better to do that nit pick constantly at peoples posts. I've put up with it for months and as none have been directed at me i've let it go, now you try to argue when your facts arn't even straight.

say something useful or don't say anything at all.

TWO THINGS - if the tax applies to everyone why not simply do as UK and other airports do and add it to the airlines costs - they pass it on as tax and nobody moans. I bought a bargain ticket to dublin for £1 one to which £30 tax was added - if it was charged upfront with the ticket nobody woud moan. Its having to find time to actually pay it when you are rushing to catch a flight that cause all the dissafection.

THE OTHER THING - totally unrelated to the tax but related to a message quoted here about being honest about age - well I struck up a relationship nearly two years ago with a young Thai guy - I was honest about my age (59) from the beginning and I thoroughly endorse the comments made about lying about age. 18 months down the line I am still in a very honest and trusting relationship with him - most young thai guys care much more about honesty than age - I will be with him again in just over a weeks time, and we are trying (for the second time) to apply for a visa for him to visit with me.

I dont feel badly treated as a tourist - especially in a country where I get good value for my £ - I can understand it can be more of a problem for people who have settled in THailand and who may be living on Thai level income rather than a UK one. Of course there will be some people who make bad remarks about tourists and others who will try to "fleece" them - but this is the same anywhere in the world. British and Americans come to thailand spending what seems to most Thai's to be a small fortune so I can hardly blame them if they want to get a little bit of it. If I wre to stay in a hotel of a similar standard in somewhere like Spain -it would cost two or three times the price - tourists on the whole get a good deal providing they get off the tourist buses, use local transport and explore for themselves.

anyway thats three points well this is what forums are about!!!

Sawadee krap to you all (hmm need to brush up my very few words of thai again!!)

[Sunderland]

I for one am gettiing extremely fed up with the way tourists are being treated here. So much so that i'm considering leaving this country. We are treated as if we are fools and all they want is to take our money with no upgrades in service or thoughts for our welfare.

the taxi situation and lack of public transport at the airport is a prime example. Also the national park fee increase when they provide us with nothing, not even signs in English.

Is anyone else getting fed up with the way we are continually being taxed without being given anything back.

I really feel strongly about this as I think it shows a complete lack of respect and also it shows that they must think we lack intelligence.

I'm pretty close to taking my money elsewhere where it is appreciated and I will at least have some rights and be treated fairly.

Anyone else feeling the same?

I also feel that from an investment point of view Thailand has had it's day, there are now better places to conduct business where rules protect us and returns are better. There are many places now looking more attractive than Thailand IMHO.

Bye then ... Have fun !

Edited August 30, 2006 by Sunderland

[Sunderland]

Many falangs want to leave LOS and it's not because of the 200 bath increase in airport tax.

Bye bye falangs ... don't forget to send a postcard.

[meemiathai]

I am really really surprised to find out this here.

Does the fact that the tax is sold seperately rather than putting it all in the ticket price annoy anyone?

I am surprised to see they get critized like saying "they are one of the last countries to have the archaic method?".

It is as simple as buying a bottle of coke from a vending machine right before you enter the restricted area and it is right next to the entrance. Just how difficult is that?

As usual, WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?? I am completely LOST!

OK, back to topic. What's it again..... Oh yes, the (Shit! What kind of a bloody keyboard is this ? Not having this (£)ENGLISH symbol on it!!! ) £3 increase in tax.

I am going to re-plan where I will retire.

[baboon]

Sunderland, do you perhaps have something errm.. a little more constructive to add other than "Bye bye falangs" to any post questioning Thailand or the way society here functions?

[britmaveric]

Someone was asking way back up there if other countries did this- I think Japan still does at most of its international airports, as does the Philippines, and maybe even Malaysia (don't remember now).

"Steven"

Japan doesn't that I can guaranteed you!!

[giulio]

increase for fearangs is always not only 5-10 per cent,but 40 per cent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JaiDamJungLoei]

In several other developing countries that had the airline collect airport taxes, when an airline started having financial trouble, they found that they could suck more money into the owners pockets before total bankruptcy by collecting the PSC and not forwarding it on to the government. All it took was bribes to a few government officials to avoid shutting down the airline for as long as possible.

A great example of this is VASP in Brazil. Even though the former owner of the airline is the richest man in Brazil, with a net worth around US$30 billion, VASP never seemed to be able to pay its bills or employee’s salaries. VASP also went about 3 years without forwarding the PSC to the airport. The government threatened them, but didn’t actually do anything to stop VASP for years. The final solution in Brazil was to have all airlines pay the PSC in advance by purchasing stickers for the boarding passes from the government. When you board a plan in Brazil, there’s a government rep at the security checkpoint scanning the barcodes on the sticker.

Also, a quick look at current ticket prices from the US (Seattle) shows an average of US$220 for taxes and PSCs on a round trip with stops in Tokyo or Taipei, or an average of US$55 per airport - not counting BKK, since we all pay cash there.

[Maestro]

£3 increase in tax.

Now that you converted it to pounds it does indeed look like a lot.

Let’s see what the tax is at Zurich airport, Switzerland: CHF 36 = GBP 15.39 = THB 1,101

Incidentally, when the airport tax is included in the ticket price, nowadays you can’t see the amount of tax anymore. The ticket may show separately the fare and the tax, but because the computer programs allow only for these two amounts to be itemized the amount shown on the line for tax also includes the airline’s fuel surcharge and, for some airports, a security surcharge and possibly also other surcharges.

--------------

Maestro

[Rinrada]

Equal to 1 Days pay for the average Thai worker on the national Min.wage....

[jdinasia]

the "average thai" won't be getting on a plane to fly internationally ......

[Alreadyinuse]

increase for fearangs is always not only 5-10 per cent,but 40 per cent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

40 what? per cent.

Ohh I see, we are talking percent

[womble]

yeah it's a raise of 40% which is huge.

But when you compare it to the departure taxes of it's competitors it's expensive, very expensive.

HK is $HK120 - 579 baht

Singapore is S$21 - 501 baht

KL is 40 Ringit - 400 baht

Taipei 300 ntd$ - NT$342 baht

Tokyo 2040 yen - 654 baht

Thailand 700 baht

Costs for labour and land are significantly lower in bangkok, infact Tokyo which is the most expensive competitor has very high labour and extremely high land and construction costs, it's one of the most expensive sities in the world, yet cheaper than bangkok.

Anyone still think it's cheap?

I'd say it's one of the most expensive airports in Asia. If not the most expensive. It's more expensive than tokyo!!!

Any comments?

I think that is enough evidence to prove it is expensive, very expensive.

Nuff Said!

Edited August 30, 2006 by womble

[Heng]

I'm thinking 1,000-1,100 Baht a departure would be a good target for the next raise. Heck, let's just peg it to 5% a year inflation.

[jdinasia]

Yeppers .... it is still cheap and since this is NOT about the new airport but ALL international departures from Thailand.

Cheaper than say --- Cambodia (and I think Laos and Burma

1000 makes good sense to me

[zink]

the "average thai" won't be getting on a plane to fly internationally ......

Actually there are now very cheap international flights available, thus this hike will affect also "average thais". For example Bangkok-Singapore (without departure tax) is available for 1499B with AirAsia. Adding 700B departure tax on top of this will increase the overall price dramatically.

This will probably affect Thailand's tourism as well. Middle class people from the neighbouring countries will think twice before coming to Bangkok...

[womble]

Yeppers .... it is still cheap and since this is NOT about the new airport but ALL international departures from Thailand.

Cheaper than say --- Cambodia (and I think Laos and Burma

1000 makes good sense to me

It is about the new airport as nearly all international flights leave from that airport, all the other airports combined only add up to a handful of the flights that leave the kingdon. Besides they are using the new airport as an excuse to raise the price.

If your happy to pay as a percentage what Is as very expensive compared to it's competitors, are you also prepared to pay this much extra for all your goods and services so that the business can make a larger profit?

Why not pay extra on your electric bills, petrol, plane tickets, infact why don't you work out the average percentage difference is with all comoeting airports, then apply that percentage rise to every good and service you buy in Thailand, maybe then you'll realise that sometimes it's ok for businesses to make profits, but sometimes perhaps those payments are unreasonably high.

Maybe you have some good reasons you could explain to me why it needs to be so high when it seems the costs involved with operation are much lower than places such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Or do you still want to insist that you think it's cheap compared to other similar services in the region.

[jdinasia]

ummmm Yes there are some cheap flights.

but a) your average Thai doesn't have a passport

b ) your average Thai has not left the country

c) it is a 200 baht increase only

d) 3500 baht (based on your 1499 x2 plus a departure tax of 500) is way beyond the 'average Thai' and that doesn't reflect a hotel in Singapore <<cheap cheap at 1000 baht>> food etc etc. Not to mntion lack of language skill to get around there.

e) the extra 200 baht leaving will hardly deter any Middle class person from another country coming to bangkok/thailand

[sbk]

Thai citizens departure tax is still 2000 baht, correct? So, I guess in some cases, it is cheaper for the farang (not many mind, but there you go)