Government Plans Suvarnabhumi Airport Expansion

[george]

Government plans Suvarnabhumi Airport expansion

BANGKOK: -- Less than a month into its commercial opening, the Aviation Department is already planning expansion of Thailand's Suvarnabhumi Airport to accommodate rapid growth in passenger traffic.

Department of Aviation director-general Chaisak Angkasuwan said he will propose to the Transport Ministry and Airports of Thailand Plc. (AOT), which manages the airport, to speed up the feasibility study to build a new passenger terminal exclusively for low-cost carriers as well as the third runway to accommodate growth in air traffic.

Mr. Chaisak said since its September 28 opening, Suvarnabhumi Airport is reaching full capacity. The expansion is required in view of the projected 10 per cent growth per year in flight and passenger traffic.

He said Suvarnabhumi Airport has over 42 million travellers passing through, against the 45 million target set for end of the year. This makes it necessary for the expansion feasibility study.

A number of international carriers have already applied to increase the number of flights to Suvarnabhumi from the end of October as winter season starts in the west.

AOT President Chotisak Asapaviriya said preparations have been made for building a new terminal exclusively for low-cost carriers whose passengers are growing exponentially. In Thailand, he said, domestic flights operated by low-cost carriers have grown 40 per cent annually.

The new terminal should be completed within a year or two to accommodate demands, he said.

--TNA 2006-10-16

[ovenman]

He said Suvarnabhumi Airport has over 42 million travellers passing through, against the 45 million target set for end of the year. This makes it necessary for the expansion feasibility study.

Feasibility study? I'm a litle bit lost here. I though that most of these expansion plans for Suvarnabhumi such as the third runway were set up years ago. The only thing new here is the proposal for a low cost carrier terminal but considering how quickly both Changi Airport and KLIA constructed their LCC terminals, I'd say that even this shouldn't be too big a deal.

[Backpack_thailand]

Amazing Thailand!

The new airport open for 5 minutes and already it's too small...!!!

[Asian Frog]

may I suggest to re-open Don Muang which should not have been closed-

1) Don Muang is a good alternate in case of a major issue blocking Suvarnaboum

2) For example, Kuala Lumpur has maintain Subang open: it is useful for some traffic, freight, charter, which do not have connections to respect. Same in numerous Capitals worldwide, old airports are maintained open until a third one is operational, to keep a minimum of 2 airports at all time...

3) Once closed, more we are waiting and more it will be difficult to reopen, as the land speculation must be already on in the vicinity of Don Muang. Soon, it will be totally impossible to do it

[Backpack_thailand]

may I suggest to re-open Don Muang which should not have been closed

Agree 100%. Why thyey didn't use DM for domestic flights as first suggested is beyond me. DM was (is) a great airport and everything is there for domestic use. Bangkok is one of the world's major travel hubs and no major city can survive with only one airport.

London has FIVE airports, NY has 2, Paris has 2 etc. etc.

Crazy!

[bkkandrew]

Yes, one of the mysteries of our time.. Thailand looks at how the rest of the world plans airline expansion - and then does the opopposite..

[nostrel]

yes it makes sense to get DM back up again surely the cheapest option, but no options for reallocation of the so called tea money so i guess its a non starter .

[ThaiBob]

My vote would be for a new domestic airport as planned. Using DM as some suggest would not be practical for those travellers needing to make a domestic connection with their international flights. Making connections at the old airport was convenient and the new airport with a new low cost carrier terminal for domestice flights makes sense. Trying go back and forth from DM to Suvarnbhumi makes no sense.

[bkkandrew]

My vote would be for a new domestic airport as planned. Using DM as some suggest would not be practical for those travellers needing to make a domestic connection with their international flights. Making connections at the old airport was convenient and the new airport with a new low cost carrier terminal for domestice flights makes sense. Trying go back and forth from DM to Suvarnbhumi makes no sense.

We manage in London, NY, Paris... Then again, the Thais would need to organise this one!

Edited October 16, 2006 by bkkandrew

[Soju]

may I suggest to re-open Don Muang which should not have been closed

Agree 100%. Why thyey didn't use DM for domestic flights as first suggested is beyond me. DM was (is) a great airport and everything is there for domestic use. Bangkok is one of the world's major travel hubs and no major city can survive with only one airport.

London has FIVE airports, NY has 2, Paris has 2 etc. etc.

Crazy!

Excuse me, but doesn't Hong Kong only have one airport? Doesn't Singapore have only one airport? I can think of lots of major cities that AFAIK have only one airport.

IMHO, Using Don Muang for domestic flights would have been a horrible idea. Huge numbers of tourists fly into BKK and then transfer to domestic flights. Even at Don Muang there were so many complaints about the long walk from the international terminal to the domestic terminal. If you had to go across town it would have been enough for many tourists to simply go elsewhere to someplace that wasn't so inconvenient to transfer. One of the main goals of Thailand in building the new airport was to make it a major transport hub of SEA. Having two airports totally flies in the face of the concept of a hub.

[Jai Dee]

Low-cost airlines want to return to Don Muang

Low-cost airlines will negotiate with the Airports of Thailand Public Company Limited (AOT), aiming at providing flight services at the Bangkok International Airport once again to solve the rising service costs.

Mr. Tassapon Bijleveld, the President of Thai Air Asia, said low-cost airlines in the country are gathering together, requesting the AOT to allow them to relocate their flight services to Don Muang Airport. They perceive that Suvarnabhumi Airport is getting congested and there are many operators with high investment. Besides, they would like to lighten the load of the AOT.

Nevertheless, the problems concerning to the system of the new airport in relations to the low-cost airlines have been solved.

Mr. Udom Tantiprasongchai, the President of One-Two-Go Airlines and Orient Thai Airlines, said he personally doest not think that the construction of a new passenger terminal exclusively for low-cost airlines is beneficial. He said the money to be spent on this project should be used to help the flood-affected victims.

He said if all other low-cost airlines have returned to Don Muang Airport, his airlines would also be ready to provide flight services there as well.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 October 2006

[Soju]

may I suggest to re-open Don Muang which should not have been closed-

1) Don Muang is a good alternate in case of a major issue blocking Suvarnaboum

2) For example, Kuala Lumpur has maintain Subang open: it is useful for some traffic, freight, charter, which do not have connections to respect. Same in numerous Capitals worldwide, old airports are maintained open until a third one is operational, to keep a minimum of 2 airports at all time...

3) Once closed, more we are waiting and more it will be difficult to reopen, as the land speculation must be already on in the vicinity of Don Muang. Soon, it will be totally impossible to do it

AFAIK, Don Muang is still open, only closed to normal (scheduled) commerical traffic. Last I heard, it was still open for military, charter flights, and other special usage. I suppose they could use it for some cargo flights, but also that could be a problem because cargo comes in on both cargo planes and on passenger planes, so it would mean double infrastructure and employees for many cargo-handling firms. Also, don't most cargo flights operate at night when there's not many passenger planes? If so, the effect on passenger numbers of allowing cargo flights is very minimal. Cargo planes only affect the number of planes allowed to take off / land during a given time. Once a cargo plane lands, it taxis to a cargo terminal and doesn't have any effect on passengers.

So it seems like they are already planning to use Don Muang as you say, though I don't know for sure what the exact status is of it as of now. As long as they can use Don Muang for any flights that doesn't service passengers requiring to transit to flights out of Suvarnabhumi, I'm all for doing that, but I think those flights will be very limited and any net effect at Suvarnabhumi will likely be hardly noticeable. IMHO, their plans for expansion are the right way to go. Suvaranabhumi needs to be a super airport that can handle all of Bangkok's scheduled commercial traffic, domestic and international.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Soju

[Asian Frog]

Hong Kong and Singapore are two specific cases.

The old Hong Kong airport was quite dangerous with the very famous approach IGS 13. How many aircraft have finished in the sea!!! (Visit airliners.net) More ...taking off facing the hills was very limitative. you could not fly direct to Europe I have made dozens of flight as crew and have the experience.

About Singapore, they have no choice until their relationship with Malaysia improves. They would like to get an other airport but they can't. SIA is obliged to send its cadets in Australia, long time ago, they were accused of spying over Malaysia. So they are not allowed to fly anymore over for training. I am in touch with plenty of Singaporean Aviation professionals, they are strangled in their tiny island and their tiny airspace.

About BKK, Correspondances have to be organised for Regular Airlines. Charter and Low costs are in an other market. The notion of Hub is initially dedicated to fill up Long Haul flight with Domestic and Short haul flights by Passengers who have bought their ticket from the origin to destination. For example Chiangmai London (via Bangkok). No reason for regular airlines to facilitate the connections to competitors on their short haul networks. If you have correspondance, check with the regular airlines it is often less expansive to buy the ticket from origin to destination than 2 tickets one on the low cost + one on the Regular (Long Haul) airline.

In case of major disruption of SUVARNABOUM, better to get DM still open.

Unfortunately, classic situation as example: a hijacked airplane: in such a case the airfield is closed by police/ Military. With 2 airports you are less in trouble.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Asian Frog

[Asian Frog]

Hong Kong Old Airport result... All passengers were advised to be able to swim...

[Soju]

Hong Kong and Singapore are two specific cases.

The old Hong Kong airport was quite dangerous with the very famous approach IGS 13. How many aircraft have finished in the sea!!! (Visit airliners.net) More ...taking off facing the hills was very limitative. you could not fly direct to Europe I have made dozens of flight as crew and have the experience.

About Singapore, they have no choice until their relationship with Malaysia improves. They would like to get an other airport but they can't. SIA is obliged to send its cadets in Australia, long time ago, they were accused of spying over Malaysia. So they are not allowed to fly anymore over for training. I am in touch with plenty of Singaporean Aviation professionals, they are strangled in their tiny island and their tiny airspace.

About BKK, Correspondances have to be organised for Regular Airlines. Charter and Low costs are in an other market. The notion of Hub is initially dedicated to fill up Long Haul flight with Domestic and Short haul flights by Passengers who have bought their ticket from the origin to destination. For example Chiangmai London (via Bangkok). No reason for regular airlines to facilitate the connections to competitors on their short haul networks. If you have correspondance, check with the regular airlines it is often less expansive to buy the ticket from origin to destination than 2 tickets one on the low cost + one on the Regular (Long Haul) airline.

In case of major disruption of SUVARNABOUM, better to get DM still open.

Unfortunately, classic situation as example: a hijacked airplane: in such a case the airfield is closed by police/ Military. With 2 airports you are less in trouble.

Your point of having Don Muang as a backup is certainly something to consider. Should Suvarnabhumi ever need to be shut down, it would create havoc with the airlines and passengers. But given the large number of international flights, diverting them to Don Muang would be a nightmare for immigration/customs to deal with processing all the passengers. I suppose for a passenger to have to wait for several hours to be processed would be preferable to being sent back home or to another country. Domestic flights could much more easily be diverted to Don Muang.

Hong Kong and Singapore may be somewhat special cases, but the fact remains that those are two examples of some of the worlds great cities that get by well with just one airport. It was a rebuttal to Backpack Thailand's argument that "no major city can survive with only one airport". Not only are Hong Kong and Singapore surviving, but they're prospering.

Regarding using Don Muang for the LCCs, I'm all for that if that is what those airlines want to do. And given the latest news report posted by Jai Dee, it sounds like that's what they want. So I'd say give it to them! I don't know what sort of reasoning and surveys they've done to reach this decision, nor what their bottom-line costs are at Don Muang vs. Suvarnabhumi, but I do wonder if it's really such a smart business move. Whatever the case, I don't see a few of those carriers abandoning Suvarnabhumi as having much of an overall effect. Some people buying those LCC tickets are after to save a buck at all costs, and the inconvenience of having to transfer from one airport to another may not deter them. If AOT permits this, I think a likely scenario is that Nok Air and THAI domestic will stay at Suvarnabhumi and perhaps increase the frequency of some of their flights to make up for passengers not willing to transfer to Don Muang. 1-2-go and Air Asia will move to Don Muang and lose some of the international transfer passengers who will opt for THAI or Nok flights, but will maintain all of their strictly domestic customers, most of whom are Thais who can't afford anything more. Only question I guess would be what about Air Asia international flights - would they go to Suvarnabhumi or Don Muang? Having them go to Don Muang would force immigration and customs to have a presence there, which could be a big step in more easily allowing Don Muang to be used in emergency situations for diverting flights from Suvarnabhumi. Cetainly seems like a reasonable approach to me, especially being that I never fly Air Asia or 1-2-go.

Edited October 18, 2006 by Soju

[Robbie Dye]

may I suggest to re-open Don Muang which should not have been closed

Agree 100%. Why thyey didn't use DM for domestic flights as first suggested is beyond me. DM was (is) a great airport and everything is there for domestic use. Bangkok is one of the world's major travel hubs and no major city can survive with only one airport.

London has FIVE airports, NY has 2, Paris has 2 etc. etc.

Crazy!

I heard before lunch today that certain low cost carriers are about to announce a pull out from Suvarnabhumi back to DM, which will surely set the cat amongst the pigeons. As yet unsubstantiated but from a reliable source as we would say!

[Asian Frog]

Some Customs and Immigration Units are still in DM. Maybe wise to close half of the DM facilities for the time being reopening only half. A reshuffle can be done to modernise partly DM. it will cost less than expansion of Subarvaboum

About Hong Kong, no major issue for an alternate within a reasonable distance (Macau, Canton...), and now everything is under the Control of the same Governement. (immigration, Customs).

Edited October 18, 2006 by Asian Frog

[Plus]

Perhaps it's cheaper to run a van transfer to Don Muang than to pay higher langing fees at Suvarnabhumi. Round trip is only 300-400 baht.

[Asian Frog]

There is not only the issue of Landing fees. If you have to wait to get a gate on the ground and if for this reason procedures are lenghtier in flight it costs a lot more than normal as the flight time is increased, as crew salaries and fuel consumption. Utilisation of aircraft limited because it can make less legs in a day, impact on the maintenance (Time between overhauls of some equipments), fixed running costs to be supported by less flights....the landing fees are just a small upper part of the iceberg.

Long time ago, I remember the mess at JFK when the airport was not fully achieved: personnally i remember a flight, taxiing number 80 before take-off, obliged to stop in Boston because we cannot cross the Atlantic due to the 3h47 minutes of taxiing in New York. And this JFK nightmare has lasted a couple of years.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Asian Frog

[Soju]

There is not only the issue of Landing fees. If you have to wait to get a gate on the ground and if for this reason procedures are lenghtier in flight it costs a lot more than normal as the flight time is increased, as crew salaries and fuel consumption. Utilisation of aircraft limited because it can make less legs in a day, impact on the maintenance (Time between overhauls of some equipments), fixed running costs to be supported by less flights....the landing fees are just a small upper part of the iceberg.

Long time ago, I remember the mess at JFK when the airport was not fully achieved: personnally i remember a flight, taxiing number 80 before take-off, obliged to stop in Boston because we cannot cross the Atlantic due to the 3h47 minutes of taxiing in New York. And this JFK nightmare has lasted a couple of years.

Speaking of JFK, I also recall several horrible experiences there of unbelievably long times spent taxiing and was glad whenever I could use LaGuardia or Newark. So-far all my flights at Suvarnabhumi have had much less taxi time than at Don Muang. Very noticeable to me the short times between take-off/landing and the gates. And so far there seems to be plenty of gates available at Suvarnabhumi (although apparently some temporary technical problem prevents all them from being utilized), so at least for now I don't think there's any sort of capacity problems.

Now for the LCCs, they mostly prefer to use remote parking, so assuming there are plenty of remote parking bays, there should be no waiting involved there for them. And they use their own buses, so the same costs for operating the buses at Suvarnabhumi vs. Don Muang. The only difference in costs should be landing fees and airport facility fees. However as traffic increases at Suvarnabhumi in the coming years, the situation could very well change and if aircraft traffic becomes heavy it could begin to cause delays/money for the LCCs.

[Soju]

Some Customs and Immigration Units are still in DM. Maybe wise to close half of the DM facilities for the time being reopening only half. A reshuffle can be done to modernise partly DM. it will cost less than expansion of Subarvaboum

About Hong Kong, no major issue for an alternate within a reasonable distance (Macau, Canton...), and now everything is under the Control of the same Governement. (immigration, Customs).

You also have several international airports in Thailand within a reasonable distance that could be used in an emergency, with same immigration/customs, but being much smaller I think they'd have a real capacity problem in dealing with diverting all incoming BKK traffic to them. Don't know what the capacity of Macau or Canton is, but would guess likely a similar capacity problem there.

Anyways, I'm all for keeping Don Muang open if there are some airlines or someone else that wants to pay for it's operation, but already there's a report that the bid by the LCCs to move back to Don Muang has been rejected due to too high of operating costs for running two airports as opposed to one. Which is just what I suspected. The LCCs want to move there but don't want to pay for it. There's no reason why I (meaning indirectly via higher airline fares passed on by airlines paying higher airport fees) should subsidize Don Muang just so the LCCs and their passengers can get a free lunch. If the LCCs don't want to pay for it, then maybe thinking of expanding some of the other existing Thai international airports would be a more reasonable alternative for emergency situations.

[Asian Frog]

SOJU

You must have an Alternate for a B 747- 400 (400 tons) except the Military base U-TAPAO nothing in the 100 NM range (185km). Some long haul aircraft are coming after a long flight their fuel reserves are low, it is always interesting to get a nearby alternate. (New York Kennedy -Newark, London Heathrow-Gatwick, Paris CDG- Paris Orly, Berlin Tempelhof- Berlin Tegel...)

I remember CANTON was acceptable for a B747-400. Not only consideration of airport capacity but resistance of runways and taxyways, possibility to taxy by a Jumbo (width of taxiways, clearance from obstacles...) The issues are not so simplist. When you have an International installation like Don Muang, you have to take full usage of such an asset.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Asian Frog

[Asian Frog]

Just for your information, to be on remote parking "at large" is not the same tariff than to be "in contact". That is the reason why LCC prefer to be at large.

[Asian Frog]

This is to confirm my previous posts:

"AIRPORT OF SILENCE

Ten flights is a busy day at Don Muang now and many staff long for the headier times of the past

Story by AMORNRAT MAHITTHIROOK

As the door slides open to the vast, empty Terminal One building at Don Muang airport, the holiday-makers pause, as if thinking they are about to enter no-man's land.

The trance is broken as an army of beaming staff rush to serve.

''For airport staff, sitting idle is a big shock from the head-spinning, demanding workload of the past,'' said Don Muang director Pinit Saraithong. ''It is no surprise that passengers receive such enthusiastic pampering.''

Before the curtain was raised at Suvarnabhumi airport on Sept 28, Don Muang handled 700-800 incoming and outgoing flights a day, bringing in thousands of passengers, or about 39 million fliers annually.

Things have not been the same since it was converted to serve chartered flights, private planes, as well as public agency, military and police planes _ with only Terminal One in use.

The once-bustling airport, with packed runways and airplanes circling in the sky waiting to land, today sees and serves fewer than 10 flights a day _ mostly military aircraft on take-off and landing exercises.

Staff meet and greet one to 10 passengers on a typical day. The busiest day was when a charter plane landed carrying 157 passengers, briefly bringing Don Muang back to life.

Duangchan Samalak, a luggage-security operative, said she has slowly grown accustomed to the quietness of Don Muang, but waits eagerly for flights that often carry only one passenger.

There are upsides to the change, said her co-worker Sanrat Buranasilp. For once, he said, there is no division of labour when duty calls.

In fact, executives rolled up the sleeves of their white shirts and helped the bag loaders put luggage from the 157-passenger flight onto a six-wheeler, courtesy of Airports of Thailand. All the luggage conveyance vehicles had been taken to the new airport.

Mr Sanrat said it is a pity Don Muang had been left so little used.

Flight Lieutenant Pinit said not only attention but also staff and equipment have been shifted to Suvarnabhumi.

A workforce of 2,000 has shrunk to about 290. There are four shifts of 60 staff each operating 24-hours a day, with 50 others doing office work during normal office hours. Each shift oversees everything from the electricity system, runways, security, traffic to bomb disposal.

But customs and immigration services are complete and operate to an international standard, even for a flight with one passenger, he said.

What troubles Flt-Lt Pinit is that there are no ground service staff posted at Don Muang. Thai Airways International and Thai Airport Ground Service Co have opted to dispatch staff from Suvarnabhumi, forcing employees to make two or three round trips each day.

One THAI staff member, who asked not to be named, said: ''I don't understand what executives have in mind. It would be more convenient to assign permanent staff, saving a two-hour trip from Suvarnabhumi. What would happen if the ground staff were in an accident on the way?''

Flt-Lt Pinit concedes it is not cost-efficient to run the 321,166 sq m airport for just a few flights a day.

Rather than enjoying a lighter workload, he regrets not doing more to serve the general public. Low-cost airliners could use Don Muang, he said, thus generating income to keep the airport rolling and easing the burden on Suvarnabhumi."

[Asian Frog]

Don Muang coming back to life the 15th March?

It seems a reasonable approach

[markuk]

AoT backs rebirth of Don Muang

Old airport to service some domestic routes

AMORNRAT MAHITTHIROOK

The board of Airports of Thailand Plc yesterday approved the use of Don Muang for domestic flights with no international connections and set March 15 as the possible date for the relaunch of services at the old airport.

In an attempt to save costs from expanding Suvarnabhumi airport and to fully use its existing infrastructure, the board led by chairman Gen Saprang Kalayanamitr decided to move to Don Muang domestic flights with no connections to international routes operated by Thai Airways International (THAI) and no-frills carriers. Domestic flights with passengers connecting with international routes will remain at Suvarnabhumi.

It targeted March 15 for the resumption of regular services for Don Muang, which was closed on Sept 28, when the country's main airport moved to Suvarnabhumi.

The March 15 date was set to allow sufficient time to prepare for an expected surge in air travel to the provinces during the Songkran holiday.

Sources in the Airports of Thailand (AoT) board said its president Chotisak Asapaviriya told the meeting that the March 15 move was possible. However, he told reporters afterwards that he could not guarantee complete success.

The decision was based on a study by AoT to compare the advantages and disadvantages of expanding Suvarnabhumi against relocating domestic services to Don Muang.

The use of Don Muang to ease air traffic at Suvarnabhumi would give officials more flexibility to fix a number of problems at the new airport, sources said.

Mr Chotisak said the board has directed AoT to work on the details of the use of Don Muang and forward them to the Transport Ministry _ which oversees the airport agency _ within two weeks. After that the ministry, which has already made clear its preference for Don Muang, needs cabinet approval for the plan.

Based on the current volume of passengers, Suvarnabhumi will serve 42 million passengers a year, just three million shy of its full capacity.

Don Muang accommodated almost 39 million passengers a year before it was closed to regular flights. It currently services only chartered and special flights.

Moving domestic flights with no connections to Don Muang will defer plans to expand the new airport, including the need to build a new terminal to service only local flights in the future.

The move will boost revenues at Don Muang, which currently earns only 500,000 baht a month from the chartered and special flights.

Don Muang director Pinit Saraithong said the airport was ready for the return to services because none of the facilities, including ground and safety equipment, had been moved to Suvarnabhumi.

However, he said the airport needed about 45 days to prepare for the return of regular passengers and to hire more security staff. With existing facilities, Don Muang could serve up to 15 million passengers a year for a decade, he added.

Airlines with domestic services _THAI, Nok Air, Thai AirAsia and One-Two-Go _ supported yesterday's decision.

Bangkok Airways could not be reached for comment.

THAI president Apinan Sumanaseni said the national flag carrier needed one month to move some equipment and hire more staff to be stationed at Don Muang but he said it was not a serious problem for the airline.

Mr Apinan said flights serving popular destinations among international passengers such as Phuket, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai and Hat Yai could remain at Suvarnabhumi.

Nok Air CEO Patee Sarasin praised the decision, which could save AoT at least 1.4 billion baht from constructing a new domestic building at Suvarnabhumi.

One-Two-Go chief executive and founder Udom Tantiprasongchai also hailed the decision, saying it was a ''good decision'' to shift domestic routes to Don Muang.

But Thai AirAsia CEO Tassapon Bijleveld said the move to Don Muang should be on a voluntary basis. He admitted that the move would affect Thai AirAsia, which needed to rotate its fleets between international and domestic flights.

so looks as though they will move back the domestic flights with no international connection - how are they going to decide that? what if one person on the plane from Phuket has a connecting flight to the UK, will that flight go to the new airport??

I can see it being a disaster, they need to make it a domestic airport then fine but make it 100% and bus people between airports.

And how can the President of AOT openly state that he cannot guarantee complete success! building themselves up for failure again!!

[Asian Frog]

Markuk,

I have already written about your remarks....This decision is logic for the Civil Aviation professional I am, and better for safety of operations.

[Boxer]

Markuk,

I have already written about your remarks....This decision is logic for the Civil Aviation professional I am, and better for safety of operations.

Re-Opening the old Airport is just another thing that will cause chaos for travellers and the International reputation of Bangkok Airport as a hub is about as low as you can get now. I was a big fan of the new place but even I have given up on it if these moves take place.

[markuk]

Markuk,

I have already written about your remarks....This decision is logic for the Civil Aviation professional I am, and better for safety of operations.

it may be logical for you as an aviation professional however that is probably the minority and certainly does not mean its logical for everyone else.

Whilst i in principle agree with a dometic airport or terminal it has to be on the basis that ALL domestic flights go from it. Then bus people between airports. There will be a whole load of confusion mixing them.

[salty]

Bring back Thaskin and his friends to cock it up sorry I mean to oversee the move.