Prev Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 Next 113 replies to this topic

[drbrit]

Its quite common for capital cities to have both an international and a domestic airport.  Or even, in the case of Singapore, terminals for regular airlines and budget airlines.  Travellers can easily understand the split.
However in this proposal we are having some domestic flights at one airport, some at another.  This will inevitably lead to highly frustrated passengers who had not been well informed of this, and we can guarantee a lot of missed flights though the complexity and confusion.  Reputation as a 'hub' will drop.

Ever since seeing a public exhibition on Suvarnabhumi at Don Muang, I was struck that the capacity increase for passengers, is only 15% more than Don Muang.  Seemed ridiculous to me, surely it should have been designed for a doubling.  Cargo capability however was significantly increased, which of course means it is the local businesses that profit more from Suvarnabhumi than the passengers.

The decades of planning for this airport are a travesty.

[Kaojai]

[quote name='TLloyd' post='1082124' date='2007-01-15 05:49:01']TIT dude...[/quote]
That's true, because nowhere else in the world are there any airport problems.

[quote]LONDON, England -- Airlines moved Wednesday to reduce the "baggage mountain" of thousands of items of luggage after chaos at London's Heathrow Airport over Christmas.
Thousands of airline passengers have still not been reunited with their personal items, the UK's Press Association reported.
British Airways, the worst affected airline, told CNN the problem would take "days" to clear, rather than hours or weeks.
A spokesman told PA that there were still "several thousand" bags that had not been delivered to customers.
Many are still stacked up at Heathrow's Terminal 1 and Terminal 4 as BA uses air freighter planes to try to clear the backlog.
A BA spokesman told PA: "The problem began before Christmas when there was a fault with a baggage belt at Heathrow Terminal 4. That caused the initial backlog, and about 8,000 bags were not delivered.
"Then the fog at Heathrow caused further problems, and there was another Terminal 4 baggage belt problem on December 29."
"The fog and the second belt problem led to about 10,000 bags not being delivered. We have put on air freighter planes to get the bags to their owners, and we have drafted in a number of volunteers to help.
"To put the whole thing into context, we dealt with about 75,000 bags a day at Heathrow over the festive period and handled about one million passengers."
The BA spokesman said that the baggage problem had also coincided with changes in working practices for BA baggage handlers at Terminals 1 and 4 ahead of the move of the airline's entire Heathrow operation to the new Terminal 5 in March next year.[/quote][quote]MIAMI: British Airways said poor lighting at Miami International Airport was responsible for one of its jets overshooting a runway here with the British prime minister, Tony Blair, and his family aboard, but airport and federal officials said Wednesday that the lights were fine.
A BA spokesman, John Lampl, said the pilot stopped the Boeing 747 at the end of the runway because he could not see the lights to the taxiway. "Apparently they're doing some resurfacing work and relighting, so the lighting was poor," Lampl said.
But an airport spokeswoman, Lauren Stover, said the lights were working fine. "There was absolutely no construction on the runway," she said. He added that for 10 years the airport had received the highest Federal Aviation Administration safety ratings for its runways, taxiways and airfield[/quote]
[quote]Isn't BA big enough to admit that it's wrong? FROM ONE OF THE MEN WHO HELPED TRANSFORM BRITISH AIRWAYS INTO THE WORLD'S GREATEST AIRLINE, SOME FRANK WORDS OF ADVICE.
From: The Daily Mail (London, England)  | Date: November 23, 2006
Byline: MICHAEL DOBBS
ONCE I was proud to fly our national carrier, British Airways. Like millions of Britons, I admired the values it stood for and so flew the flag.
Our custom and support helped make it the most successful airline in the world. Yet, no longer. A whiff of madness is wafting from the company's headquarters.
It seems as if British Airways does not any more want to be British. Perhaps the management is suffering from a collective lack of oxygen, or auditioning for parts in the next Borat film, but something has gone horribly wrong.[/quote][quote]Colin Barber wrote to the BBC News website to say he was disturbed to find unattended piles of lost luggage in Heathrow Terminal One.


Following a weekend spent in Ukraine to usher in the New Year, Colin Barber was surprised by the sight that greeted him at Heathrow on his return to the UK.
There were countless bags in the baggage reclaim area at Terminal One.
As far as he could tell, the bags - many of which had labels clearly identifying the owner - were unattended and could have been stolen by unscrupulous individuals.
"A room adjoining the reclaim area was also full with more 'lost' bags," he said, and "in one area there was a pile of about 20 pushchairs".
Mr Barber said he was appalled.
"There was absolutely no security - had I wanted to, I could have picked up any item of luggage, and walked through the green channel.


"No attempt was being made to do anything about the situation.
"There were four BA [British Airways] lost-luggage staff on duty. When I questioned one of them, he said that they were not dealing with the backlog, they[/quote]

[pnustedt]

Robbie Dye, on 2007-01-15 12:40:28, said:

This whole nonsense is going to cause havoc for poor visitors from overseas, never mind us ! The airport code is BKK which as we all know was moved from Don Mueang to Suvarnaswamp. They will have to create a new three letter code and implement this in worldwide reservations systems and online, and make sure everyone knows what they are doijg, and if anyone thinks they can do this by 15th March they have to be joking. There can be no doubt that chaos will prevail very soon!! I wish them luck.

Call the current airport Suvarnaswamp Terminal 1 (Intl) - or Bkk Intl, and the old one Suvarnaswamp Terminal 2 (domestic) or Bkk Domestic. Intl flights won't land at Terminal 2 so no need for immigration controls, etc.

[phuketdiver]

Why cant people read the innitial post before posting their replies and making derogatory comments about the Thai government and their supposed inabilities - Don Muang is reopening " at the request of low cost airlines

The government are taking the responsible act of ensuring that there is a low cost alternative in the airline industry.

And for those who are whinging about having to transfer between airports to save money I suggest they take a closer look at their home countries.

Several of the low cost airlines do not fly into the main airports but to hub airports anything up to 50 km away -

Easy Jet into London Luton (!!!)

Easy jet into Glasgow - actualy into an airport 35km away but great for the golf course

Palermo - 3hr 30 bus journey into the city

And there are many other places similar to this. Before the Americans get too excited and on their high horses one of their airports is not even in the same state as the name on the tickets.

The government have taken a logical decision on a request from Thai businesses - which affects mainly Thais or those who choose to life in Thailand.

If you dont like the decision shut up or get out and leave those who are comfortable living with the decisions being made (we may not like them but accept it's not our country). Some of us are getting fed up of being tarred with the same brush by Thais who are fed up of constantly whining ferangs

Phuket Diver

[Robbie Dye]

Patriot, on 2007-01-15 11:11:53, said:

Sorry folks but I havent read all the posts on this thread, but when I want to go from Phuket to Udon Thani, is that to Suvarnapum, shuttle bus to Don Muang and then onwards to Udon ...... eerr I don't think so; bye-bye Thai Airways?  ANyone know

I reckon you will have to use Air Asia via an airport (probably Don M). Air Asia are NOT I think happy about this because if I understand right Don M will be ONLY for the domestic low cost boys, thus if they wanted to get a plane to go BKK Udon in the early morning but then once back in BKK it was to head to Singapore the plane would be at the wrong airport! Luckily I am in the trade so I hope I can get some more info for people soon>

[pgs]

farang62, on 2007-01-15 12:17:21, said:

It seems that London and Paris manage with 2 airports in operation.!

Paris has 2: Charles de Gaul & Orly; London has 5: Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, City and Luton. Heathrow is far too big.

[wrecker]

Thai policy makers seem to have a real problem with their brain. Or should it be so that they deliberately trying to kill of the country.  cheaper for the airlines, much more expensive for the tourists, business people, and the tour operators.  Hmm Two airports, located 60km apart from each other. That would be great fuin for tour operators, they need 2 offices, they need to hire shuttle buses, and the tourists lose a day in traffic and collecting baggage and checking in. I am always amazed how much geniuses there are in the Thai civil service. The only reason why Malaysia is not taking off is just because they have two separate airports. Well military intelligence.... we know the answer.

[wrecker]

roego, on 2007-01-15 05:55:22, said:

Why be so negative. The actual domestic move is a good idea,but it should be all, all domestic.

Air Asia should be made to use the two airports,so no confusion arrives. Not that they arrive on time anyway.If Anyone wants to use Internatial at THe Don, then those airlines should pay 100% of the cost of immigration and customs that would have to be set up.

Thai Airways has long been an inefficient high cost operator,and needs a good over haul.

A good idea??? So because you are an inefficient company, you force your failing business model upon tour operators and travellers. The nonsense that London has two airports makes no sense. Everybody knows that Heathrow is a disaster, it is old fashioned they have too few landing strips, the Spanish operator put too little money in it. And in case of Paris or Milan, it is a bit different. You have the GTV so you can be faster anywhere in France, The Netherlands or Belgium than by air, more convenient and cheaper too, and they have at least connecting flights. The fact that you call it a good idea showws that you have not given it a thought for any minute longer than the Thai authorities. It will kill off the tourist industry. The bottomline is of course that Don Muang is a milityary airport right now and the cronies of the dictator must be rewarded, I suppose the 859,000 THB a month salary is not sufficient for the gentlemen... talking about greed and incompetence.

[percy2]

endure, on 2007-01-15 03:12:15, said:

If they move all the lowcost airlines back to DM Thai will then realistically have a monopoly on farangs flying to Phuket, Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen as nobody's going to be bothered to hack across town to save 1000(ish)bt.

Thats only for tourists arriving on inter flights.

The domestic market for domestic flights won't see much of a difference.

Cheers

[tomazbodner]

endure, on 2007-01-15 03:12:15, said:

If they move all the lowcost airlines back to DM Thai will then realistically have a monopoly on farangs flying to Phuket, Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen as nobody's going to be bothered to hack across town to save 1000(ish)bt.

Most travelers aren't connecting to low cost airlines anyway, as extra domestic legs come for nearly (if not) free on Thai. So it wouldn't be bad to have Thai operated connecting flights from Suwanabhumi and low cost carriers from Don Muang.

And what's wrong with Don Muang Airport? They don't need to call it Bangkok International Airport or any other nonsense...

[tomazbodner]

chiang mai, on 2007-01-15 06:50:54, said:

"The carrier is will be a full-service airline positioned between low-cost operators and THAI".

The "low cost" carriers such as NOK and Air Asia charge, if I recall accurately, 1,400 baht from Chiang Mai to BKK, provided you catch the early flight, otherwise the cost of the ticket fast approaches that of Thai. In that context there's not a lot of room to squeeze another airline into the pricing model, especially not one owned by Thai. It strikes me that this is nothing more than a ploy to allow Thai to push its prices even higher by introducing yet another carrier into the fray. Incidentally, tried to buy a ticket from BKK to Manilla from Thai at CM airport yesterday and they quoted me 28,000 baht. The Thai Airways lady then said " that's very expensive, better if you go next door and buy the ticket there". Next door I was able to buy the same ticket, on Thai, for 12,900 baht.  Now that's great for me and thank you to the lady from Thai Airways, but ..........!

That's normal. Airlines sell at full IATA rate. If you want a discounted rate, you either have to buy from a travel agent, or from airline's website. There, the prices differ depending on airline. While say Emirates is very near or same as agent rate, Thai is outrageous, just reposting IATA rate on their site (apart from their useless "SuperDeals").

[Jaxxeh]

LOL

I am completely confuzzled.

Someone said Bangkok Air flights will remain at Suvarnabhumi and Thai Int'l flights will also land at Suvarnabhumi... ?

(Yes I like to type Suvarnabhumi Suvarnabhumi Suvarnabhumi wheee)

As the Thai's say.. don't worry. It will sort itself out

Edited by Jaxxeh, 2007-01-15 13:40:39.

[grahamhc]

farang62, on 2007-01-15 08:17:21, said:

It seems that London and Paris manage with 2 airports in operation.!

More than that!  London has Heathrow and the little known London City in the Docklands. Then there are the 3 other "Local" airports, Gatwick (LGW), Luton, and built in the marshes, like Surwanathingy, Stanstead Airport. All deal with both Domestic and International.

[Nemo.]

this has to be the most stupid idea ever!

The operating costs at the old airport will be higher if reopened as it wont have the previous volume. It's too far away from the new airport for connections.

Dumb, dumber and Thai dumb!

[chiang mai]

phuketdiver, on 2007-01-15 11:59:31, said:

Why cant people read the innitial post before posting their replies and making derogatory comments about the Thai government and their supposed inabilities - Don Muang is reopening " at the request of low cost airlines

The government are taking the responsible act of ensuring that there is a low cost alternative in the airline industry.

And for those who are whinging about having to transfer between airports to save money I suggest they take a closer look at their home countries.

Several of the low cost airlines do not fly into the main airports but to hub airports anything up to 50 km away -

Easy Jet into London Luton (!!!)

Easy jet into Glasgow - actualy into an airport 35km away but great for the golf course

Palermo - 3hr 30 bus journey into the city

And there are many other places similar to this. Before the Americans get too excited and on their high horses one of their airports is not even in the same state as the name on the tickets.

The government have taken a logical decision on a request from Thai businesses - which affects mainly Thais or those who choose to life in Thailand.

If you dont like the decision shut up or get out and leave those who are comfortable living with the decisions being made (we may not like them but accept it's not our country). Some of us are getting fed up of being tarred with the same brush by Thais who are fed up of constantly whining ferangs

Phuket Diver

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (not the wording) you expressed at the end of your note you did get a few things off centre here. First of all, AOT is a government organization and the low cost airlines or budget carriers have only asked for Don Muang to be reopened in order to suggest a resolution to the current overcrowding problem. People would not have a right to complain had a new major airport not been built but as it is there is a reasonable expectations on the part of the public to expect that some amount of capacity planning had gone into its design. As it turns out that was not the case and now the traveling public will be in a slightly worse situation than before. I think that readers have a right to complain about the somewhat dysfunctional solution to the problem. It would be sensible to split domestic and international traffic between the two airports but to split only the domestic traffic of the national flag carrier is a nonsense and does nothing to consider the needs of the traveling public. Finally, I am uncertain what you meant by the government ensuring there is a low cost alternative in the industry. If you were referring to Thai Airways launch of a budget carrier, Thai is a private company.

[sriracha john]

wrecker, on 2007-01-15 12:58:21, said:

The bottomline is of course that Don Muang is a milityary airport right now

Quote

and the cronies of the dictator must be rewarded, I suppose the 859,000 THB a month salary is not sufficient for the gentlemen

Is it possible to provide a source for these statements? Thank you.

[Rhys]

And the grand master will reopen the place too... DAT SOON...555555

[Valehree]

Virgil, on 2007-01-15 06:10:55, said:

cdnvic, on 2007-01-15 08:45:02, said:

So what name will be used for DM?

Bangkok National Airport
Bangkok Occasional Airport
BKK Classic
I can't believe it's still an Airport
New Bangkok International Old Domestic ...er... I give up.  

Re: Airport names:

Well, I've conferred with my wife and ... killing ourselves laughing ... we have agreed that the airports should be renamed to:
"go-diss-way"
"go-datd-way"

Don't ask which one is which ... that would spoil all the fun.

Virgil, Out!

    a good laugh  

[ramidin]

Great. Now if you fly from Udon ( or anywhere esle) with an o/s connection, you have to get your bags and drag it half way over Bangkok.

So much for short connections and a regional hub.

Absolute bloody nonsense!

[sjaak327]

Robbie Dye, on 2007-01-15 04:40:28, said:

hardy1943, on 2007-01-15 05:44:00, said:

cdnvic, on 2007-01-15 04:45:02, said:

So what name will be used for DM?

Bangkok National Airport
Bangkok Occasional Airport
BKK Classic
I can't believe it's still an Airport
New Bangkok International Old Domestic ...er... I give up.  

What will they dream of next.One has to live here to beleive all of this BS.No one else would beleive it.

This whole nonsense is going to cause havoc for poor visitors from overseas, never mind us ! The airport code is BKK which as we all know was moved from Don Mueang to Suvarnaswamp. They will have to create a new three letter code and implement this in worldwide reservations systems and online, and make sure everyone knows what they are doijg, and if anyone thinks they can do this by 15th March they have to be joking. There can be no doubt that chaos will prevail very soon!! I wish them luck.

That airport code already exist: DMK.

[gudy]

endure, on 2007-01-15 03:12:15, said:

If they move all the lowcost airlines back to DM Thai will then realistically have a monopoly on farangs flying to Phuket, Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen as nobody's going to be bothered to hack across town to save 1000(ish)bt.

Yehey... I think to start my own low cost airline service... from Suvarnabhumi Airport to Don Muang..... let's calculate 10.000.000 * 500bht.... 5bln bht yearly....  just ordered a cessna A300

[veteran]

   TIT :   

[dominique355]

I live near the "Outer Ring" Motor Way, which now connects to Suvarnaphum Airport. Before it opened, this was a quiet little motor way with little to no traffic and certainly never any traffic jam. Now, since Suvarnaphum has opened, this motor way is totally over capacity, the traffic is crawling and more often standing still. To connect Suvarnaphum to Don Muang, you need to take this motor way, then exit on Ramintra and go to Viphavadee.  Since you cannot turn right there, run south on Viphawadee until the next U-turn bridge and then  north to the old airport. I don't think it can be done in less than 90 minutes, any time of the day. Add 90 minutes to disembark from your international flight arriving in Suvarnaphum and another 90 minutes to check-in at Don Muang, that makes 4,5 hours connecting time from an international flight to a domestic flight. Got to be a new world record.

They say a people has the government the deserve, but did Thai people really deserve this level of incompetence?

Edited by dominique355, 2007-01-15 18:24:48.

[mitrapaap]

cdnvic, on 2007-01-15 05:50:08, said:

Had they kept it open for some flights it would have been one thing, but to shut it down and then re-open just makes a laughing stock out of the whole AOT. A brand new airport is already not able to handle its own domestic traffic? What kind of fools are in charge of AOT?

"Not able to handle" and "too expensive" is not the same thing.

[mitrapaap]

Nemo., on 2007-01-15 13:57:47, said:

this has to be the most stupid idea ever!

The operating costs at the old airport will be higher if reopened as it wont have the previous volume. It's too far away from the new airport for connections.

Dumb, dumber and Thai dumb!

While I as an individual would certainly appreciate if there was only one airport, because then I never have to worry about where exactly to go when I take a plane, I am sure that those who make these decisions on whether to re-open Don Muang or not did go to school and have their degrees enabling them to make that decision, while most of the posters here obviously do not have the insight and detail information necessary to somehow intelligently comment the decision.

Just believing to know everything better than everybody else is not a proof of intelligence. Your last line should be enough to get you deported and banned from re-entering Thailand.