Suvarnabhumi Terminal 2

[DivineMadman]

I thought Cathay had moved to Terminal 8. This has 29 gates with an extension concourse rather like the one being built at BKK. But it shares the terminal with other OneWorld carriers. No idea if that means occasionally having to use a bus. 

I appreciate my lack of clarity i the topic. I was thinking only of the small size of the proposed new Terminal 2.  I meant I would be thrilled if Cathay moved to the new Terminal 2 at BKK.  And yes I believe you are 100% correct that Cathay's new home at JFK is Terminal 8.

[ChristianPFC]

Perhaps it's time to resurrect non-stop express train to Makkasan  and Phaya Thai with more frequency but NOT at price of 3 times of regular train like before. Infrastructure exists , only pricing was non-sensical.

 

The express was more expensive and less frequent than the commuter train. I once calculated, and it was like wait 5 min for the commuter train and ride the train for 30 minutes, or wait 10 minutes for the express train and ride the train for 15 minutes. But there were time slots where the total time (wait and travel) was longer for the express than the commuter.

[fedssocr]

not so fast on this particular design apparently...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30353460

 

the original winner looks much better

[PeterRS]

From a quick glance at the various designs, it appears the number of airbridge gates must have been dictated by the AOT brief. It also appears that there will a considerable number of parking bays requiring bus transport to the terminal. Compare that to Changi in Singapore. The existing 4 terminals have 117 air bridge gates for 82 million passengers. The new Terminal 5 now being constructed will cater for another 30-50 million passengers but its number of airbridges has not yet been determined.

 

BKK is expecting 65 million passengers this year against the design capacity of 45 million but has only 51 airbridges. It already operates with an additional 69 bus gates. The Terminal 1 extension looks like it will have 30 gates. But that still leaves 39 bus gates and it assumes no additional flights. Since passenger number and flights are estimated to increase that clearly means more bus gates!

 

Yet the AOT has announced that even with the new extension the design capacity will be 60 million. Can no one in the AOT do simple math? 

[DivineMadman]

I don't know for certain, but my guess is that AOT can do math.  My guess is that they and the Thai government are making economic decisions weighing the costs expansion, including at BKK and other airports throughout Thailand, and the marginal gains and losses of having to use a bus occasionally.  When airlines have a say, they usually urge caution on major expansions because they worry they will end having to pay higher fees.  If I were advising them, I would certainly advise them to risk losing some marginal customers who might boycott BKK as a result of the occasional use of buses.  Right now I think they have better uses for their funds.  

 

But that's just one approach.  Another approach would be to say massive public works can have major benefits for the overall economy so go ahead and implement the 120 million passenger plan, which I believe involves building a mirror image terminal and mid-field concourse on the opposite side.  And clearly the opportunities for graft would be enormous.  This would be the "if you build it, they will come" model.

 

I try not to be too insulting of my Thai hosts and think maybe they are being rational.

[reader]

NOTE -- A few Thia aviation-related items in today's news:

 

Excerpts from The Nation

 

Thailand welcomed visitor arrivals of 22,657,730 over the period January-July 2018, up by 11 percent over the same period of 2017, according to preliminary figures tabulated by the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. Estimated visitor expenditure also rose significantly, up 14.44 percent to Bt1.18 trillion.

 

East Asian countries accounted for 15.45 million visitors, or 68 percent of the total. China topped the list with 6,860,924 million arrivals.

 

Arrivals from Europe were up 6.37 percent to 4.05 million. Russia is the largest source market out of Europe, with arrivals of 900,712, up by 16.24 percent.

 

Arrivals from the Americas were up 2.99 percent to 948,872. The main market, USA, was up by 5.82 percent to 656,327.

 

Continues with charts

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/Travel_log/30353214

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

 

From Bangkok Post

 

The Department of Airports plans to raise the passenger service charge (PSC) on departing travellers on international flights at its 22 airports by 50% to 600 baht.

 

The rate for domestic flights, now at 50 baht, remains the same, he said. The airports currently charge 400 baht per passenger for international flights and 50 baht for domestic flights, much lower than other airports, director-general Darun Saengchai said on Saturday.
 

https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/news-and-pr/1532242/provincial-airports-plan-service-charge-hike

 

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

 

Excerpts from Bangkok Post

 

Thai Airways International Plc (THAI) will propose a revised turnaround plan for the flag carrier to the State Enterprises Policy Commission on Sept 12.

Mr Ekniti said earlier that he wanted to make the national carrier a premium service airline, cracking the world's top five within five years.

 

He said THAI is approaching street food vendors who were awarded Michelin stars, including Jay Fai, to provide food for in-flight meals.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/tourism-and-transport/1532002/thai-updates-strategic-plan-to-exit-rehab
 

 

[vinapu]

 

He said THAI is approaching street food vendors who were awarded Michelin stars, including Jay Fai, to provide food for in-flight meals.

 

 

de-frozen street food , what a great idea ! I'd suggest adding freshly boiled ice cream

[PeterRS]

My guess is that they and the Thai government are making economic decisions weighing the costs expansion, including at BKK and other airports throughout Thailand, and the marginal gains and losses of having to use a bus occasionally.

 

That is one view for sure. On the other hand, look at some of the airline and BKK review sites and you see a lot of angry passenger complaints about arriving back at BKK in the late evening. With many airbridge gates tied up for departing long haul flights, a lot of regional TG arrivals are parked at bus gates. How many times is there a delay getting buses to the aircraft> How many times is an incoming aircraft stuck on a taxiway for 30 or more minutes waiting for a scheduled airbridge gate to be freed up because the outgoing flight has been delayed? Too many.

 

Tourists travelling in economy class whose final destination is BKK are probably not too concerned about such delays because they experience them once a year. It is the regular business travellers who make up the real income for airlines that get really pissed off. After a long haul flight, the last thing I want is bus gate during monsoon rains or a taxiway delay. I just want to get through immigration and into a taxi fast.

 

There is another issue. What about passengers connecting at BKK to other parts of the region? The AOT keeps on claiming its aim for BKK is to be the best hub for the region. As it continues to tumble down regional airport rankings, constructing terminals with minimal airbridges seems to me like shooting itself in both feet. Being a hub means working smoothly as a hub and spoke operation like DFW, ORD, ATL etc. How many bus gates are found in those airports? Not many in my experience. Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Taipei seem to have just a handful each.

[reader]

de-frozen street food , what a great idea ! I'd suggest adding freshly boiled ice cream

 

May be yet one more example of why the carrier continually finds itself in the red.

[DivineMadman]

That is one view for sure. On the other hand, look at some of the airline and BKK review sites and you see a lot of angry passenger complaints about arriving back at BKK in the late evening. With many airbridge gates tied up for departing long haul flights, a lot of regional TG arrivals are parked at bus gates. How many times is there a delay getting buses to the aircraft> How many times is an incoming aircraft stuck on a taxiway for 30 or more minutes waiting for a scheduled airbridge gate to be freed up because the outgoing flight has been delayed? Too many.

 

Tourists travelling in economy class whose final destination is BKK are probably not too concerned about such delays because they experience them once a year. It is the regular business travellers who make up the real income for airlines that get really pissed off. After a long haul flight, the last thing I want is bus gate during monsoon rains or a taxiway delay. I just want to get through immigration and into a taxi fast.

 

There is another issue. What about passengers connecting at BKK to other parts of the region? The AOT keeps on claiming its aim for BKK is to be the best hub for the region. As it continues to tumble down regional airport rankings, constructing terminals with minimal airbridges seems to me like shooting itself in both feet. Being a hub means working smoothly as a hub and spoke operation like DFW, ORD, ATL etc. How many bus gates are found in those airports? Not many in my experience. Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Taipei seem to have just a handful each.

I think you're saying that as an economic/business matter you would make the investment, whatever that may be, to avoid bus gates.  (And I'm not actually saying you would literally say, "expense be damned at whatever cost."  I assume you are saying to do so within reason.)  That's fine.  I respect that decision.  But there are lots of competing needs for infra-structure money right now, which is why I'm trying to say that even if we might disagree with AOT's sluggish expansion plans, I don't think they should be simply dismissed, or unable to do math.    I haven't seen a break down of the costs of building the current terminal vs. building Suvarnabhumi overall, but going ahead and building a new "mirror" massive terminal on the other side of the airfield would cost many billions USD.  (I can't even do the math on how many Baht that would be.)  

 

And, I would note that airlines are often very much involved in these airport expansion decisions, so they are making business decisions on their own, and it would not surprise me at all to learn that airlines are telling AOT to be conservative on expansion plans, because they would rather minimize increased landing fees.  I'm not a fan of it, but that does seem to be the mantra of the airline industry these days - less convenience for the passenger will be tolerated if it can keep costs down.

 

Another factoid to keep in mind is that some airlines are perfectly happy to pay the lower charges they pay using a bus gate than they would have to pay at a bridge.  Put another way, the inconvenience of the Thai Smile flight (for example) using a bus gate is probably factored into the ticket price.  

 

Also, something I hadn't thought of until I saw it being discussed somewhere else: some airlines prefer the tarmac and bus gate if they overnighting the plane because it so much cheaper.  Again, it's a cost saving measure for the airline.

 

I will confess, the buses don't particularly bother me.  

[vinapu]

 

  I'm not a fan of it, but that does seem to be the mantra of the airline industry these days - less convenience for the passenger will be tolerated if it can keep costs down.

 

 

very true, when connecting through Shanghai in Jun I was suprised how far plane was from the terminal - long bus ride, 2-3 km at least but for price I paid i wouldn't mind  even three times longer bus ride, better than sitting idle in the waiting room in front of the  gate 

[PeterRS]

Another factoid to keep in mind is that some airlines are perfectly happy to pay the lower charges they pay using a bus gate than they would have to pay at a bridge.  Put another way, the inconvenience of the Thai Smile flight (for example) using a bus gate is probably factored into the ticket price.  

 

Also, something I hadn't thought of until I saw it being discussed somewhere else: some airlines prefer the tarmac and bus gate if they overnighting the plane because it so much cheaper.  Again, it's a cost saving measure for the airline.

 

I will confess, the buses don't particularly bother me.  

 

I am sure budget carriers are normally much happier with lower bus gate fees. On the other hand, these add to their turnaround time which is so vital to budget carriers. Some at DMK have only a 30 minute turnaround. I somehow doubt that can be achieved at bus gates.

 

Re overnighting, my understanding is that hardly any major carriers will even consider this. They offload their passengers and the aircraft are then towed to a parking area before being towed back again an hour or so before the scheduled departure.

 

very true, when connecting through Shanghai in Jun I was suprised how far plane was from the terminal - long bus ride, 2-3 km at least but for price I paid i wouldn't mind  even three times longer bus ride, better than sitting idle in the waiting room in front of the  gate 

 

 

Does this not partly bear out my view? Economy passengers are far less concerned about bus gates than business and first. But - and it is a big but - if the incoming plane is even 30 minutes late, the extra time taken to get from the bus gate can make the difference between catching a connecting flight and missing it.

 

I am not against the concept of bus gates - just as long as I do not have to use one! As for transferring at BKK, I would never even consider it. Ill take Changi, Incheon, Hong Kong and others any time.

[Guest]

I dislike bus gates, whichever class I am in.

 

However, I'm not completely sure they slow down turnaround times, when viewed from the aircraft usage perspective, particularly when used with the 737/A320 family of aircraft..   Bus gates usually have the planes disembarking from both ends, so that part should be quicker.    If the buses with the new victims are already loaded, then the new buses could arrive as soon as the old ones have departed.

Bus gates do slow down MY turnaround time, but I suspect this is not what the airlines measure.

 

A nice little compromise is whee the plane parks close to the terminal and the passengers walk to it, boarding at both ends again.  Often used in Stansted & Schoenefeld, for example.   Well, it's OK in good weather at least.

 

There must be more running costs for buses.  You still need all the staff in the terminal, plus about 4 bus drivers to empty a 737. The bus will need fueling and servicing.   

The air bridge can run with one person.  Actually, as it's a process that could easily be automated, it's about time they cut it to zero people to reduce cost and speed up turn around.  If it's run by software, the thing could be deployed as soon as the plane stops.

[DivineMadman]

 

Re overnighting, my understanding is that hardly any major carriers will even consider this. They offload their passengers and the aircraft are then towed to a parking area before being towed back again an hour or so before the scheduled departure.

 

I wasn't suggesting that the major or flag carriers overnight.  But some airlines do.  And the airport probably serves some of those as well.  Maybe the charter types from the big country up north that provides so sends so many passengers to BKK and DMK.  Others?  (Admittedly not you or me.)  

[PeterRS]

Maybe the charter types from the big country up north that provides so sends so many passengers to BKK and DMK.  Others?  (Admittedly not you or me.)  

 

I do not know any airline that sends charters to Thailand or any other country and then parks them. Their objective is a quick turnaround for aircraft, pilots and cabin crew and then get back to home base asap. The exception will be some carriers on longer hauls - both chartered and scheduled - who do not carry two crews and do now have a crew based in the destination city/country. They have no option. International rules mandate maximum pilot work hours.

 

Some scheduled airlines do have an aircraft flying in late evening and then stay at the gate until an early morning departure. But in those cases they would never have their aircraft parked at a bridge gate requiring payment for all that time. That could cost well over $10,000 if not a lot more. If the airport does not require the gates overnight, I expect it will waive bridge gate parking fees rather than bother towing the aircraft to a park space. Either that or it has a substantial rebate scheme.

[vinapu]

 

The air bridge can run with one person.  Actually, as it's a process that could easily be automated, it's about time they cut it to zero people to reduce cost and speed up turn around.  If it's run by software, the thing could be deployed as soon as the plane stops.

I found that reducing number of passengers speeds turn around greatly. Imagine , 7 passengers are leaving aircraft by front door and at the same time outbound 5 are climbing stairs in the back, no need to clean aircraft and off we fly. 

 

I guess that idea was tested by Quantas  in early nineties when I was flying Sydney-Melbourne in 747 with all of 19 passengers on board of economy / I counted /. Reason for such  a waste was  rule permitting Quantas to fly on internal flights only passengers with international ticket, 3 of us from Honolulu flight joined other 16 finishing their London-Sydney-Melbourne trip

[reader]

From Bangkok Post

AoT's new Suvarnabhumi terminal 'won't benefit users'

The Association of Siamese Architects under Royal Patronage (ASA) has voiced its opposition to the 42-billion-baht plan to build a second terminal at Suvarnabhumi airport, saying it will not benefit passengers or ease overcrowding.

ASA president, Ajaphol Dusitnanond, said that the association is concerned by the plan's deviation from the airport's original master plan.

The project was put on hold by then-transport minister Arkhom Termpittayapaisith in July, after a review by the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) concluded that the Airports of Thailand's (AoT) plan for the development of the second terminal was "incompatible" with other development schemes that were planned for the area.

"However, the current Transport Minister, Saksayam Chidchob, chose to ignore the NESDC report and decided to press ahead with the project," said Mr Ajaphol.

He said that the plan has deviated extensively from the original master plan, which will inevitably cause delays to the development of the rest of the airport and raise the risk of cost overruns.

"This will only exacerbate the overcrowding as the number of passengers continues to increase," he said.

Furthermore, Mr Ajaphol said that the AoT envisages the second terminal as a large building with a focus on commercial space, which ultimately will not benefit passengers.

Continues at

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/1737211/aots-new-suvarnabhumi-terminal-wont-benefit-users#cxrecs_s