Suvarnabhumi Airport Needs Expansion

[george]

Suvarnabhumi Airport needs expansion

BANGKOK: -- Kasikorn Research Centre (KRC) recommended that agencies involved with Suvarnabhumi Airport consider expanding the hub to keep pace with a rapidly growing aviation industry.

According to International Air Transport Association (IATA), in the next five years, commercial passenger service will grow by 5.6 percent per year, while cargo business will grow by 6.3 percent per year.

“Suvarnabhumi Airport covers 8,000 acres, making it possible to host a maximum of four runways, 112 flights per hour, 100 million passengers per year and six million tonnes of cargo per year,” KRC analysts wrote in their report.

For the time being, Suvarnabhumi has two runways, and can accommodate 45 million passengers per year, 76 flights per hour and three millions tonnes of cargo per year. During the airport’s second phase of construction, there are plans to add two more runways.

“It will be necessary to expand Suvarnabhumi. Agencies have to start working on it right now, otherwise we may not be able to serve future growth and may not be able to become the regional hub,” KRC analysts reported.

--TNA 2006-09-24

[sriracha john]

The newer, expanded airport is slated to follow the same timeframe for the new airport and will open September 28, 2047.

[Backpack_thailand]

So this new "Wonder Airport" has been open 5 minutes and already it's not big enough!

T.I.T

[Ricardo]

Which is why work is supposedly already underway, on a new low-cost-carrier terminal, similar to Singapore's new one. This was announced a couple of times during this summer.

Although since only half of the parking-stands are at gates, and there will therefore often be a need to bus you out to your plane, there is already a lower-cost lower-quality aspect to operations at Suvarnabhumi.

Nevertheless, having bravely decided to press ahead with opening on the 28th as scheduled, I certainly wish everybody involved with the opening every good luck and success.

[think_too_mut]

It would be cheaper and more probable that they opt to reopen Don Muang. Like LHR and LGW.

[sriracha john]

Nevertheless, having bravely decided to press ahead with opening on the 28th as scheduled, I certainly wish everybody involved with the opening every good luck and success.

yes, our collective hopeful prayers are with those that are the first guinea pigs.... errrr, passengers.

[britmaveric]

Nothing new - before it was even complete they alway said it needed to be expanded.

I concur keeping DM open would be smart business sense. However thats expecting too much.

[Lacoste]

The usual negativity against Thailand that i expected to find here.

[endure]

It would be cheaper and more probable that they opt to reopen Don Muang. Like LHR and LGW.

It would be a bit of a nightmare if the put all the cheapie airlines at DM.

[Soju]

It would be cheaper and more probable that they opt to reopen Don Muang. Like LHR and LGW.

That would be a big mistake IMHO. One of the goals of Suvarnabhumi is to be a hub for air traffic in SEA. They could never realize that goal if passengers had to transfer between airports. In some cities, when a new airport opens, the old one remains open in order to handle additional traffic, or it is assigned as a domestic airport while the new one is assigned as the international airport. Neither of these solutions would be acceptable for BKK because of the huge numbers of transit passenger and the huge numbers of international arrivals who are transferring to domestic flights for their vacations. I think the current plan is best given the circumstances in Thailand. Let Don Muang serve military, charter, and private flights and Suvarnabhumi serve all other traffic. About the only thing I see as possible is perhaps diverting some cargo flights to Don Muang.

[cclub75]

That would be a big mistake IMHO. One of the goals of Suvarnabhumi is to be a hub for air traffic in SEA. They could never realize that goal if passengers had to transfer between airports.

Not necessarily...

How many airports do we have in London, New York, Paris ?

Is that a problem for those cities, regarding their "air attractiveness" ? I don't think so.

[astral]

How many airports do we have in London, New York, Paris ?

Is that a problem for those cities, regarding their "air attractiveness" ? I don't think so.

It is very definitley a problem if you have to transit in these cities and you connecting flight is that the other airport on the other side of the city!!!

[Soju]

That would be a big mistake IMHO. One of the goals of Suvarnabhumi is to be a hub for air traffic in SEA. They could never realize that goal if passengers had to transfer between airports.

Not necessarily...

How many airports do we have in London, New York, Paris ?

Is that a problem for those cities, regarding their "air attractiveness" ? I don't think so.

If your final destination is London, New York, or Paris, then it makes no difference, and maybe even is a slight advantage if you can select which airport is closer to the area of town you'll be staying at. But if it's not your final destination and there are no connecting flights out of the airport you want to fly into, then it certainly does make it less attractive. If I wanted to use London as a hub, but needed to transfer between Heathrow and Gatwick, I'd gladly pay 100 GBP more for a ticket that didn't need such a transfer/layover. If you divide all air traffic into a city equally between two airports, chances are 50% that the most "convenient" (the next time-wise) connecting flight to your flight will be at the other airport. Some people will put up with the inconvenience of transferring from one airport to another. Many will not. For many, the transfer time will mean they will miss the first connecting flight and need to wait much longer for the next one. If someone is flying from London to Singapore and they can save a lot of money if transit in BKK for two hours, they'll likely think it's a good bargain. But if the travel agent tells them they have to exit immigration, get themselves along with all their luggage over to another airport, then check-in again and pay a departure tax, do you think they'll still want to do it? I don't think so. Some people don't mind spending a night in BKK and enter one airport and exit another. But many people visiting Thailand are return tourists who have already seen BKK and have no desire to spend any more time there. They only want to get quickly to Phuket, Chiang Mai, or wherever their final destination is. It will also cost airlines more money as they will need to have duplicate flights, one to each airport, or risk losing customers to other airlines.