Suvarnabhumi Expansion

[Guest fountainhall]

I note that the green light has been given to the expansion of Suvarnabhumi. Once again, the decision has been taken far too late, as it is now envisaged Suvarnabhumi will reach is design capacity of 45 million passengers this year!

 

The new development will see the construction of a satellite terminal about 800 m south of the existing one and connected to it by one of those driverless trains common in many airports now. The satellite will have a capacity for 28 aircraft, but will not be completed until 2015 at the earliest! Well, I for one have two questions for the AoT Board.

 

At present, there are at least 40 non-airbridge parking spots. When I arrived back from Shanghai on Sunday evening on one of TG's nice new A340-600 aircraft, at least 20 airbridges were unoccupied - yet, we parked on the tarmac and had to be bused around over half the airport in foul smelling buses. Why? If the aircraft was to be parked there overnight (which I do not believe, as I think it was scheduled to fly to Europe a couple of hours later), it takes less than 45 minutes for it to be completely unloaded, after which it could be towed on to a tarmac spot. Come to think of it, though, in all my dozens of times at the airport, I have rarely ever seen planes being towed anywhere. At Hong Kong, you see it all the time, so that airbridge gates can be freed up for more flights. Maybe they need to buy a few more tow trucks.

 

Secondly, what is going to happen over the next 5 years about all the extra[/b] flights that will be arriving and departing? The AoT say they will -

 

deal with congestion at Suvarnabhumi by means of streamlining traffic flow and better management of aircraft time slots through shifting some arrivals and departures to non-peak periods

That in itself has to be a joke. There is not much you can do with arrival and departure time slots for long distance flights, if only because of the curfews at worldwide airports. So the Immigration and Security lines at the morning and evening peak hours will only get worse. Then try telling a major carrier like Singapore Airlines that it cannot depart at 16:00 but must depart at 17:30! All airlines try to maximize utilisation of their aircraft. This would not only screw up SIA’s fleet utilization, but also its scheduling, as it would probably result in passengers ex-BKK missing connections on to other SIA flights.

 

Since neither a low cost terminal nor a third runway is in the new plans, the obvious solution - to all but corrupt politicians - is to do what Air Asia and others are now saying: turn Don Mueang into the low cost hub for most of the low cost carrier flights, and for domestic flights with limited connecting passengers.

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/aviation/192757/suvarnabhumi-extension-ratified

[Moses]

I note that the green light has been given to the expansion of Suvarnabhumi. Once again, the decision has been taken far too late, as it is now envisaged Suvarnabhumi will reach is design capacity of 45 million passengers this year!

 

this is just "bla-bla-bla"... after May in BKK they don't expect now even 40KK

 

When I arrived back from Shanghai on Sunday evening on one of TG's nice new A340-600 aircraft, at least 20 airbridges were unoccupied - yet, we parked on the tarmac and had to be bused around over half the airport in foul smelling buses. Why? If the aircraft was to be parked there overnight (which I do not believe, as I think it was scheduled to fly to Europe a couple of hours later), it takes less than 45 minutes for it to be completely unloaded, after which it could be towed on to a tarmac spot.

 

It is easy to found answer: parking at tarmac + buses are CHEAPER than parking with airbrige...

 

rest is the same - about money... peak time slots and late night slots have difference in prices about 2 times... airport will rise difference even more and airlines by themself will move some flights to more cheaper slots...

[Guest GaySacGuy]

I agree with Moses that the use of the tarmac parking and buses is all about money. I have flown in on a weekday morning and seen many open gates without planes, and then had the flight park out in the middle of nowhere and bus us to the terminal. On United this month, we parked at a "gate" but came out of the airplane, down a set of steps and onto buses to get to the terminal. This was an international flight, partked at the international terminal, which was going to be turned around back to Japan....makes no sense but $$$. Can anyone find out what Thailand charges and airline to use a real gate??? They put the same plane at a real gate to depart.

[pong]

dear Fountainhall. For this why?

it is money-the airplane would have to be schlepped from the airbridge to a night-time parking position. Or it may even do a domestic turn later on-and then cannot be parked in an international gate. UIt is a very common complaint on Tg from dedicated boards like flyertalk.com

[Bob]

It is easy to found answer: parking at tarmac + buses are CHEAPER than parking with airbrige...

 

But it is annoying at times. A couple of years back, I flew on Thai Air from Chiangmai to Bangkok on a fully loaded 747 (yep, that's right, a 747) and, in spite of the fact that I counted 17 airbridges empty, they bussed the whole lot of us to the terminal. One would think that flights on the national carrier to and from their two biggest cities might merit actually using the terminal facilities a little more effectively.

[Guest fountainhall]

Interesting comments.

 

This was my first international flight with TG for over 2 years. Every other full-service airline I have taken in the interim - many flights on Cathay Pacific, British Airways, JAL, KLM, Finnair, China Airlines, Qatar, Royal Jordanian, Sri Lankan etc. - has arrived and/or left from an airbridge gate.

 

I can understand - just - possible problems if an aircraft arrives from an international sector and is then scheduled for an immediate domestic flight. But that was definitely not the case on Sunday. Not only would it have been too late for a domestic departure, TG does not use the A340-600's on domestic routes. Virtually half the length of the aircraft (the longest in their fleet) has first and business class seating.

 

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Thai_Airways/Thai_Airways_Airbus_A340-600.php

 

But even if it had been scheduled for a domestic sector, I have often seen domestic passengers bused to an aircraft at an international gate for boarding by the aircraft stairs. So I guess this was just a case of TG penny pinching!

 

peak time slots and late night slots have difference in prices about 2 times... airport will rise difference even more and airlines by themself will move some flights to more cheaper slots.

But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, most of those late night slots simply cannot be changed. BA and Qantas, for example, cannot bring forward their departures to London because these flights already arrive virtually as soon as Heathrow's nighttime curfew ends. The same is true for almost all late-night European departures. Those airlines best able to re-schedule will be the low cost carriers. But they won't want to move their early-morning departures or late-evening arrivals, which presumably is one reason they now want to move to Don Mueang where take-off/landing fees are a lot cheaper!

[Guest beachlover]

But it is annoying at times. A couple of years back, I flew on Thai Air from Chiangmai to Bangkok on a fully loaded 747 (yep, that's right, a 747) and, in spite of the fact that I counted 17 airbridges empty, they bussed the whole lot of us to the terminal. One would think that flights on the national carrier to and from their two biggest cities might merit actually using the terminal facilities a little more effectively.

 

I agree... I've never had to be bused to the terminal landing in Bangkok, unless on a low-cost carrier like AirAsia. I suppose Singapore Airlines, British Airways and Qantas use air bridges in Bangkok but Thailand's own carrier, THAI refuse to cough up the money... how ironic!

[Guest travelerjim]

It is apparent that the old airport, Don Muang,

is destined to be the Cargo Air terminal...

and the new airport BKK the domestic/int'l airport.

 

I think Bangkok needs both for the traveling public,

as one would see in many large cities worldwide.

 

As fr their "late in the game" action to expand,

TIT!

 

tj

[Guest fountainhall]

I return to that old chestnut, Suvarnabhumi airport. It seems to attract good reports from those who do not travel much and are more used to some of the older and much more cramped facilities in Europe and the US. Others, including a fair number who have to use it regularly, find faults that have been there since opening day and which make it frequently a frustrating experience.

 

As I said the other day, I try to avoid departure rush hours whenever possible. Avoiding rush hour arrivals is not quite to easy, alas. This evening I left Hong Kong at 8:00pm, a great time to depart with the airport enjoying a kind of lull before the mass evening departures to Europe. Getting in to BKK at around 9:40, I noticed quite a few other planes had arrived, yet immigration was surprisingly quick and – wonder of wonders – a few of the officers were actually smiling! Baggage reclaim was also excellent.

 

The trouble started immediately afterwards, as at least one charter planeload of Russian tourists was in the process of going through the customs check. Outside, in the area which I consider an utter disgrace for a newish airport, the arrivals area, it was near pandemonium. Our Russian comrades were all descending to Level 1 for their tour buses, the same level where ordinary mortals find the public taxis. So the entire area between the customs exit to the moving walkway down to Level 1 was totally packed. It was hardly moving. When I finally got past the lift, I realised that the comrades were trying to take their trolleys down the walkway two by two. It is designed for just one. Consequently, several had got stuck and one Thai youth who looked no more than 16 was trying to persuade this unruly mob that they had to get on just one at a time.

 

Regular users know there is another walkway a little further on, and an escalator. But until you have got past that bloody lift, you cannot swing round the throng to access them. It was a total, frustrating disaster. What people visiting Thailand for the first time must feel about it, I really hate to think.

 

I read that reducing the arrivals area by 50% was a cost saving measure. Well, now they have no alternative but to spend a whopping amount to restore it all again.

 

I also noticed that King Power's prices have risen far beyond the ridiculous. A litre of premium vodka - Grey Goose or Belvedere - is fully US$14 more than at Hong Kong. Absolut must also be about the highest duty free rate in the region. Perfumes and cosmetics are also hugely overpriced. I suppose King Power is making up for all the illegal space it had been using and which has now finally been cut back to the contracted amount.

[Jason1988]

Back in September I arrived from Tokyo on a Delta flight late at night. It was pouring down rain and instead of using a gate with a sky bridge they used a bus gate. The last three feet from the plane's stairs to the bus was under the open sky and all the passengers got a good soaking. Not a very good first impression on Bangkok. The same thing used to happen at Don Mueang (DMK) so there is nothing new happening. Just makes you feel that BKK airport is thirty years behind the times.

[Guest fountainhall]

As I said in my first post at the start of this thread, in August I counted more than 40 non-airbridge parking stands - and that was certainly an underestimate of the total. A nice cocktail to anyone who can tell me of any other Asian airport less than 5 years old with more than 40 non-airbridge parking stands!

[Guest]

Being bussed in or walking from the bottom of thep lane steps to the airport is very common with low cost airlines in Europe.

 

I believe the airports charge less AND it's often possible to board at both ends of the plane, therefore speeding the whole operation up. In the case of the thoroughly outstanding Ryan air, they even have steps built in to the plane, so as soon as the planes stopped, they're powering the steps down onto the tarmac. Much quicker than waiting for lazy European ground crew to bring their steps along.

[Guest anonone]

I am not entirely convinced it is solely airlines refusing to pay more for airbridge use. I arrived on United Airlines flight last month (they only land once a day at BKK) and had to use a "bus" parking spot. Crew (FAs and Capt.) seemed surprised that they were using it instead of airbridge. It was also the only time I had experienced UA not using an airbridge gate. Seems odd that they would want to "save money" on just this one day....

 

UA flight lands around midnight, then takes off again for NRT at 0700 , so it is not an international / domestic turn situation.

 

Thankfully, there was little wait at immigration this time around, which is not always the case.

 

While BKK is not my favorite airport, it is a small price to pay to gain entrance back into Thailand.

[KhorTose]

I return to that old chestnut, Suvarnabhumi airport.

 

Yes, the layout is bad, King power charges way to much, and the Thais seem to do everything to slow down the process of landing and leaving the airport. There are also some fun glitches when you arrive to depart elsewhere, like a twenty mile walk. However, when you factor in 18 changes of government in the last 65 years is it really that bad? I mean look at it this way, Hong Kong designed their efficient airport to last for the next 50 years, in Thailand I think they think in terms of 5 years. Not a bad airport considering:wacko:.

[Bob]

I actually think it's a great airport and very easy to use. Sure, it's big and sometimes the walks are a fair distance, but that comes with the territory of an airport that services upwards of 14 million people a year.

 

Many of the complaints - not enough immigration officers on duty at a given time or carriers choosing not to use the sky bridges - really don't have anything to do with the airport itself but how it's run.

 

I used to hate how one would switch between international and domestic at the old Don Muang airport. Basically, you had to haul your suitcase half a mile through the allegedly air-conditioned tunnel. In Suvarnabhumi, you just zip up to the fourth floor via elevator or the slanted/powered walkways. Easy as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest fountainhall]

Being bussed in or walking from the bottom of thep lane steps to the airport is very common with low cost airlines in Europe.

Airports generally charge less for non-airbridge gates, one reason for low cost carriers (lccs) using them as often as they can. But for all lccs, keeping costs to the bare minimum is the business model. So in Europe Ryannair will sometimes use secondary airports where landing charges are much cheaper than the regular international airports. KL and SIngapore both have very basic LCC terminals. That's all perfectly understandable.

 

What is not, in my opinion, is having full service international carriers park at a non-airbridge gate in a new international airport, as in anonone's case. This happens in BKK not so much on cost grounds but because there just are not enough gates. Plain and simple. The airport is already at full capacity only 4 or so years after opening!

 

I actually think it's a great airport and very easy to use. Sure, it's big and sometimes the walks are a fair distance, but that comes with the territory of an airport that services upwards of 14 million people a year.

Sorry Bob, BKK's capacity is nearer 45 million - and it has already reached that number! For a new airport catering for that many passengers, the lack of moving walkways at departures level - both in the main terminal and its 6 satellites - is just one of its many design faults.

 

Here are just a couple of comments from the Skytrax site -

 

The layout is woeful. I must have walked for about two kilometers past a ludicrous amount of duty free shops to get from one poorly signed terminal to another. Only reached my gate with 10 minutes to spare (from a 90 minute layover). They desperately need a monorail type system to move passengers from terminal to terminal quickly, although the cynic in me thinks that there's a reason why they are forced to walk past all the duty free shops with their overpriced goods. 16 July 2010

I have often transited through this airport but never actually left the airport until this visit. For a modern airport it is a shambles - it is hard to work out where you are going, in particular from the domestic to the international terminals. Additionally I do not know why an airport with so many air bridges you still have to be bussed to your plane - surely they would have thought of this when building the place. Immigration looked like a nightmare but lucky we had fast tracks and did not have to put up with the huge lines for non- Thai citizens. Overall a fabulous looking building but not user friendly. 9 January 2011

And I agree with the lack of user friendliness comment. If you look around, there is still a lot of signage on 2-meter boards plonked on the ground. Put a few people around them and you can read nothing. Ask any architect/planner, when moving large numbers of people through smallish areas, proper easy-to-read directional signage above head height is vital.

[macaroni21]

I had a similar experience coming in on a full-service airline (I'm almost sure it was Cathay Pacific). It parked against an airbridge, but instead of walking through the airbridge into the terminal, we were directed to walk OUT OF THE AIRBRIDGE down a flight of metal stairs into busses!

 

Until now, I have no idea why it happened that way.

 

Suvarnabhumi in my opinion is less an airport than a railway station. It is designed to be impressive but ultimately finds itself having to move tens of thousands of people every hour, sometimes in well-thought-out ways, other times with make-do arrangements. It's not particularly bad -- I've seen worse places (Heathrow anyone?) but it's not up there among my list of pleasant experiences.

 

The things I hate most about Suvaranbhumi are:

 

1. Lack of seating. I get the feeling it is deliberate to force you to patronise a restaurant, which might not be so bad if not for. . .

 

2. Lack of reasonably priced cafes on the air-side

 

3. Long queues at immigration -- and still many booths remain closed.

 

4. No free wi-fi.

 

I can also imagine that if I were not such a frequent visitor to Bangkok, I might find the airport's layout too confusing, and signage lacking.

 

As for the satellite terminal, I think the 2015 completion date is far too optimistic. They have to build a subway under the parking apron to the new satellite terminal. Think of the chaos that it's going to cause and the difficulty in getting it done. At Kuala Lumpur, they built the subway and satellite from the start.

[Guest lonelywombat]

I am even less impressed with Suvarnabhumi after flying in to Malaga early this year.

 

That is a well planned airport that claims itself as 5 star.It will be interesting to see how the ongoing work turns out when I return later this year.

 

The huge problems I have had this year is the immigration queues when leaving LOS.They have converted to one long queue and with so many planes leaving at the same time. But sometimes half the booths are not occupied early to mid evening. This must be cost saving surely, not staff shortages.

 

One thing I picked up on is that mature age passengers can bypass the long line and get into the repid line. look at the sign at the entrance to immigration.

[Guest fountainhall]

Immigration is way up there with the main complaints. For those who travel at the front end of an aircraft, however, the fast track system is rapidly being adopted at BKK. This cuts departure and arrival waiting time to often less than 5 minutes.

 

For anyone based in Asia who travels more than about 4 times a year, try by hook or by crook to get an APEC Business Travel card. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is made up of 21 countries in the Asia PAcific region. The Business Travel card is a magical little piece of plastic that gets you dedicated (short) queues and visa free travel. Most countries are in Asia (including China), but it also includes, for example, Chile. The main benefits are -

 

- Fast-track entry and exit through special APEC lanes at major airports, and multiple short term entry to these economies for a minimum of 59 days stay each visit;

 

- No need to individually apply for visas or entry permits each time you travel to any of the participating APEC economies as the card is your visa.

 

The sting is that you have to be resident in one of the countries and you must work for a company based in one of the countries. Provided you meet the former qualification, I am sure there are ways to make the latter more easy.

 

http://www.businessmobility.org/key/abtc.html

[Guest]

I find the airport to be very satisfactory.

 

I've always had to wait for bags after getting through immigration, so it's the baggage handling I would improve first. Recently immigration has been a little slower, but I've never found it to be excessively bad.

 

You can get free wifi for 15 minutes. That's not brilliant, but better than a lot of other airports. With their rather loose record keeping, I imagine you could probably request further access codes to extend that 15 minutes.

 

The food & drink options are reasonable, when measured against other airports.

 

I would prefer to see Don Mueang kept open & run by a competing airport company. Competition is usually good for customer service and pricing.

[ceejay]

I find the airport to be very satisfactory.

I agree with that, but I guess that Z909 and myself are both imfluenced by havimg to transit Heathrow Terminal 3 at the other end of the journey. That is as close as you will get to the seventh circle of Hell in this life.

[Guest fountainhall]

I would prefer to see Don Mueang kept open & run by a competing airport company. Competition is usually good for customer service and pricing.

I have always been in favour of keeping Don Muang. Sell it to the private sector - even better. But I think it should be the low cost carrier hub - rather as Luton and Stanstead cater for many of the Ryannair and Easy Jet flights in the UK. Take the lccs away from Suvarnabhumi, get that northern section of the railway link up to Don Muang fast-tracked, and you don't need to worry about the cost of expanding Suvarnabhumi in the short term.

[Guest]

Don Muang should have enough capacity for anyone who wants to fly there, either low cost or high priced carriers. So sell the airport off to a competing company & let them take whatever business they can pick up.

[Guest fountainhall]

The basic problem for a feeder hub airport like Suvarnabhumi is that everyone wants to be one of the spokes. I remember when Cathay Pacific, Virgin Atlantic, American, Delta and others were restricted to Gatwick airport. None wanted to be there, in spite of lower charges and a faster train service from the city. But there were no slots at Heathrow. Then, when Heathrow finally was forced to open up, most moved most of their operations to the larger airport so onward connections for their passengers became so much easier.

 

Twice in recent years I have done that Gatwick/Heathrow surface transfer. Each time it was almost chaos at Gatwick with passengers who had fixed departure bus tickets but whose flights had been late arriving were scrambling along with those who had not pre-purchased to get on the few available seats. I once had to wait more than 2 hours and thought I'd have to take a hugely expensive taxi!

 

The bigger issue, apart from a fast link, is immigration. No passenger wants to have to go through immigration at one airport, particularly if it means a special visa, only to exit the country again a couple of hours later through another. One of Cathay Pacific's New York flights transits in Vancouver. Passengers have to have a Canadian transit visa in order to get on that flight - and that does not involve a change of airport!

 

Transferring to a domestic flight, though, is a different matter. A lot of cities have two airports with domestic flights restricted to one of them (apart from a few rush-hour feeder flights - as at Narita and CKS in Taipei). With TG seemingly reducing its domestic network, having Don Mueang as the main domestic hub, to me makes so much sense. As does moving the lccs. Even Air Asia is now coming round to the idea of basing again at Don Mueang since, like all Asian lccs I can think of, their ticketing is point-to-point. Transfer and you need a new ticket - a great way to avoid having to pay penalties if one flight is late arriving!. And not only would a private sector Don Mueang operator be in a position to do much better deals for lccs than Suvarnbhumi, I am pretty sure Suvarnabhumi would be quite pleased to get rid of them, if only to free up more space for higher paying full service flights.

[pong]

some remarks:

1.the still existing domestic operations at DMK, in the old domestic termional (seems to be nr 3), will MOVE to old terminal part nr. 1 (former international ) as per 1/4 or 1/5 coming. This is about 1-1,5 kms apart!

1b. as DMK is owned by the Thai airforce, privatisation seems a very far-off idea. They have to get someone in the govtmt, handling on their behalf (which is way it reopened some time ago) to protect their takings. it must also be about the only airport with a golfing course right next to it, occasionaly golf-balls land on the tarmac. it must also be one of the very few airports in this world where a gay brothel/massage-house is located under its approach (K-male).

2.re on gate or ramp: I once arrived at Denver,CO, USA from Europe, plane parked at gate-which was then NOT used, we had to step into buses, bringing us to immigration, for the usual interrogations and terrorist-screenings, incl. fingerprinting etc. When planes park on apron, this is often when they have to stand for long times , like overnight, tipical for most arrivals at Swampy from USA.

The no-frills cheap-cheap THAi AirAsia always uses apron and buses (the oldest they could find in this kingdom), where as the KUL flights on the malay AirAsia branch use a very convenient gate , in the mid (shops) D-pier, right next to immigration.

3.from LGW to LHR you can go about 6 times/hour by train to London and then the tube-in fact (with an oyster card) this is even cheaper as the lowerpriced of he rip-off NatExp. buslinks (sorry, coaches for you Brits, we continentals never see that difference). But thats of course more changes and more carrying luggage around.