Guest fountainhall Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Surely this is unbelievable! The Nation today has an article headed "Suvarnabhumi named fifth best airport." Well, when you look more closely, you find the sub-editor who wrote that headline had not checked all the facts, and - unsurprisingly - it is misleading because it is only partially true! What it goes on to say is - Suvarnabhumi Airport has been ranked fifth best in its category of annual capacity of more than 40 million passengers. In the 2010 list, there were 13 airports rated in the category by Airports Council International (ACI). The top four are in Hong Kong, Beijing, Dubai and Dallas. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/444248-suvarnabhumi-named-fifth-best-airport/ What? Where is Singapore's Changi? Where is Seoul's Incheon? Both are routinely voted in the top 3 or 4 in the world. And who ever heard of Dallas being in the top five of any international airport poll? Ever tried transiting between international flights in DFW? You can’t. US airports don’t have international transit facilities. You have to enter the USA and then exit again. I know. I had to do it once. Never again! Sneakily, the Nation has quoted a poll about airports with a capacity in excess of 40 million passengers. This inevitably excludes a host of the much better airports. Changi and Incheon fall a bit below that number. Secondly, this poll was conducted by the ACI on the basis of 260,000 respondents. The much more widely quoted Skytrax polls are based on the feedback of a far larger number of passengers. So, blow your own trumpet, AOT. A helluva lot of passengers will not listen until you start to solve some of the airport's glaring problems! Did someone mention Immigration queues? Quote
Guest anonone Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Ever tried transiting between international flights in DFW? You can Quote
Guest Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 I rate Suvarnabhumi above Changi & it's probably my favourite large airport. Quote
Jason1988 Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 My only gripe about Suvarnabhumi is that every time I arrive in bad weather we're subjected to a bus gate. Everything else is very nice and quite enjoyable. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Passengers using the airport more than a few times a year certainly experience more of Suvarnabhumi's faults - and they are many. Hong Kong's airport topped that recent poll. Sure, it's been open longer (1998) and has sorted out its early problems. Yet, though the terminal area is more than 10% smaller than BKK, it has 10% more air bridge gates - and no passengers need be bused to aircraft. Hong Kong ID card holders use thumb print fast immigration lanes. The others have used the snake system for years, which BKK steadfastly refuses to adopt. The difference in the passenger experience between HKG and BKK is pretty wide. Quote
Guest Thor69 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 My only gripe about Suvarnabhumi is that every time I arrive in bad weather we're subjected to a bus gate. Everything else is very nice and quite enjoyable. That happened to me when I would fly Northwest, now Delta. I stopped using those carriers and now use EVA. Try them, you will be surprised. Quote
Bob Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Yes, at least with EVA (which I've used exclusively for 5+ years), at least you're not bussed to gates. The cheapness of some airlines bussing passengers on occasion isn't necessarily the fault of the airport. I've been bussed on Thai, Air Asia, and Bangkok Airways (and probably one or two others) and many of those times I've counted many gates open that could have been used. Once I flew on a loaded 747 from Chiangmai and they bussed us in spite of the fact that I counted 17 gates totally unoccupied. But I don't blame the airport for that problem. Other than the sometimes long distances to walk, I actually like Suvarnabhumi and find it very easy to use. I've never understood the complaints. Immigration queues, the only really annoying item, is also not the fault of the airport but of an Immigration Bureau that doesn't properly man the booths and/or occasionally has incredibly bad timing. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 The cheapness of some airlines bussing passengers on occasion isn't necessarily the fault of the airport . . . But I don't blame the airport for that problem. Sorry, but I blame the airport entirely! Low cost carriers were already completely changing the face of the airline business many years before designs for BKK were finalised. The re-birth of Air Asia in 2001 was a year before construction began. Nearly every expert predicted a rise in Asia of low cost carriers similar to those in the US and Europe. Yet obviously no-one involved in the planning of Suvarnabhumi considered this. So, thanks to that lack of foresight, BKK’s forecasts of runway use, passenger numbers and airbridge gates were hopelessly wrong before they even finalised the design. That is solely the fault of the AOT. But even if you were to take away the lccs altogether and move them either to a separate terminal, as in KL and Singapore, or over to Don Mueang (my favoured solution), BKK still does not have enough airbridge gates. Those same experts were projecting a massive rise in general demand for air travel throughout Asia in the first decades of the century. Failure to take note of that is a design fault, pure and simple. (Moving to Don Mueang will no doubt have some passengers screaming. But it makes a great deal of sense, and even the boss of Air Asia has now come out in favour of it. It’s no different from London, where most lcc flights operate out of secondary airports like Luton and Stanstead.) As to operations, I believe BKK does not have dedicated gates as most US airports do. (Hong Kong only has Gates 1 – 4 guaranteed to Cathay Pacific which operates most of the flights). Clearly there is a major attempt to have One World carriers in the west wing where their premium lounges are located, and TG and Star Alliance in the east (although TG now has a lounge in the west, presumably because more and more of its flights are being located there). It may be cheaper to park aircraft on the tarmac, but I am pretty certain it is the ground controllers and their computer programmes that allocate stands (most lcc flights apart) based on up-to-the-minute arrival and departure forecasts. Quote
Bob Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 You're blaming the bussing situation, I presume, on the notion that there are not enough gates. While that could be true (I've doubted that before when seeing so many open gates), is it also possibly the result of the airlines choosing the cheaper option? I actually don't know the reason but have read many comments that it's happening because the airlines are trying to avoid the gate fees on occasion to save money. Anybody actually know for sure why it's happening? Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Sorry, I don't know. But I cannot believe that TG in its home airport deliberately parks a very few wide-bodied aircraft on the tarmac only to save a few Baht, when it knows how much passengers dislike this. My guess is it's far more likely that the aircraft is not required for 4 or 5 hours and the airport can not have an airbridge out of service for that length of time at or approaching peak periods. Although I have also seen lots of empty gates when being parked at a bus gate, who knows how many wide-bodied aircraft requiring quick turnarounds will be landing 30-40 minutes later? Lccs like Air Asia, on the other hand, will definitely seek bussed gates because of the cost saving. Another reason for having their own lcc terminal some way away from the main terminal, in my view. Quote
Guest anonone Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I agree that it is not always the airline making the "park and bus" decision based on cost. There is some rationale that has the airport dictate this option. What goes into the decision is not clear. Lack of gate space may be a factor, but I doubt it is the only one. Quote
Guest Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Based on European travel experience, I suspect some airlines choose to avoid the airbridge. Ryan Air will typically park up and within seconds of the plane stopping, the onboard steps at the front are being powered down to the ground. No need to wait for lazy slow ground crew. If the ground crews actually don't mind doing some work, they roll a second set of steps to the rear of the plane and the whole process goes at double the speed. Quicker than an airbridge. Ideally, the passengers WALK 30m or so to the terminal, therefore avoiding the expense & delay of a bus. Overall, this usually works quite well here. Quote
Guest Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Based on European travel experience, I suspect some airlines choose to avoid the airbridge. Ryan Air will typically park up and within seconds of the plane stopping, the onboard steps at the front are being powered down to the ground. No need to wait for lazy slow ground crew. If the ground crews actually don't mind doing some work, they roll a second set of steps to the rear of the plane and the whole process goes at double the speed. Two doors are clearly quicker than one door & an airbridge on 737s. Maybe things are different on twin aisle planes. Ideally, the passengers WALK 30m or so to the terminal, therefore avoiding the expense & delay of a bus. Overall, this usually works quite well here. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Ideally, the passengers WALK 30m or so to the terminal, therefore avoiding the expense & delay of a bus. The procedure at the lcc terminals in KL and Singapore is virtually similar. No airbridges, although the walks are sometimes a bit longer than 30 meters. The terminals are also pretty basic, with Singapore marginally more appealing than KL. Quote
Guest aot87 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 Whats the suituation like when emirates arrive with their a380? Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 There are dedicated gates for the A380, so boarding and disembarking can be done on 2 levels. Business and first class have fast track immigration. Last time I came in, it was a breeze. Quote
Jason1988 Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 I don't mind walking from bus gates except when the weather is bad. Even the flag carrier, Thai Airways uses bus gates which, seems to me, not a great way to make Thailand appear as good as it could be to foreign visitors. When you're trying to impress the world how amazing Thailand is this leaves much to be desired. Quote
Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 The terminals are also pretty basic, with Singapore marginally more appealing than KL. KLLCCT is a particularly unimpressive experience & is on a par with some bus terminals. For departures, the flight would have to be discounted that bit further just to offset the poor experience in the terminal. Quote
Bob Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 While I don't like the bussing at Suvarnabhumi - especially when there appear to be plenty of gates that seem available - my worst experience was on an Air Asia trip from Chiangmai to Kuala Lumpur. On that occasion, they parked the plane quite a ways out on the tarmac and simply had the passengers walk in a line to the terminal. It was hot as hell (at least 40C) in the bright sun and I was a bit pissed because I was a wet mess by the time I got to the terminal; however, what I was really concerned about was that I wasn't sure if several of the older passengers were physically able to even make the journey (I saw many struggling and thought they'd keel over but all did make it to the terminal). Edit: On second thought, I think this actually happened at CNX on a return flight from Kuala Lumpur. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 KLLCCT is a particularly unimpressive experience & is on a par with some bus terminals I second that. I would even describe it as depressing. Considering it's the lcc's that are effectively choking Suvarnabhumi, that's one reason I think they should be moved over to Don Mueang. Either that, or put a large firework under the AOT to get it to build a new lcc terminal at the main airport now. These nissen hut-type structures can't take very long to deign and build! At the very least it should reduce congestion in the main terminal - if, and I suppose it may be a big if, the Immigration Department can find more staff to handle both terminals. Quote
pong Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 re KL/LCC-how long ago have you been there? the INTERnational area has been modified en expanded a lot since about 1 year. And though it indeed is basic-no-frills, it is now not very cramped, has more options for food (also after the checks-can be taken on board). The former common area is now for domestic MY only. And just outside-behind all the buses, is a new (but also barn-like structure-nothing new for those used to BigC or Tesco here) malay foodcourt with many offerings at near-normal town prices. OMD-I know some RYAN-only airports in Europe that would improve immensely if they could gain that standard. or take Dublin-so crowded thatnot even one more mouse could enter at busy times-only for check-in. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Was last there 2 years ago, so before the expansion. Even though it has improved, I am sure it is still a vastly different experience from the main KUL terminal. Quote
Guest Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 I was at KLLCCT just over 2 years ago. Incidentally, I'm not sure why the best airports have to be the large ones. There's a lot to be said about a small facility where you can park 20 metres from the front entrance, then sit in a small terminal with no more than 2 flights an hour. Providing the one cafeteria is nice & there's some kind of newsagent, what more do you need? On arrival such places can excel too. I must have walked out of the front door of Phnom Penh within something like 10 minutes of the plane halting (with my checked in bag!!!). Quote
Guest anonone Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 link The Immigration Bureau of Thailand is finalising a study that seeks to provide solutions to speed up the long immigration process at Suvarnabhumi Airport, particularly within the departure section. The transport permanent secretary Supoj Saplom told local media that they have two weeks to propose ways of improving the present system. He added that hiring more immigration officers to man the counters would be one part of the solution. The immigration facilities at the airport have recently been over flooded by a surge in passengers. Currently, 90,000 passengers pass through the airport per day, making Suvarbhumi the 16th busiest airport in the world in 2009 based on figures from Airports Council International. Anyone want to lay odds on the effectiveness of the pending improvements? Quote
