One Airport Policy for Bangkok Trashed

[Guest fountainhall]

Flying in to Bangkok later in the year on a budget airline, take note! It’s now all but certain you will be flying into Don Mueang, not Suvarnabhumi (BKK).

 

After years of stating to all and sundry that Bangkok was adopting a one-airport strategy so that BKK could become the leading Asian airline hub, the government has finally admitted that it, its predecessors and the AOT got it all wrong. BKK is now so overcrowded, with passenger anger and complaints at such a pitch over Immigration queues that are worse than almost any other international airport, that BKK just can not cope. So the single airport policy has been trashed. Budget and charter airlines are being told they have to move over to Don Mueang – until a new terminal is opened at BKK, and that it 5 years away, at least!

 

As recently as December, the former Transport Minster announced, “Suvarnabhumi should be Bangkok’s sole airport.” Now the new Transport Minister has finally admitted -

 

It's clear that the single-airport policy isn't practical due to the problems of congestion.

 

Why this change of heart when most frequent travellers have been saying for several years that BKK's services were being stretched to near-breaking point? Publicity – or rather reams of negative publicity that have been streaming in many media, including a lot of international media.

 

Anyone reading the Thai newspapers, the various frequent flyer/travel chat rooms and at least one other thai gay website -

 

http://gaybuttonthai...71ca7dcb156ca3b

 

- will know that the Immigration chaos at Suvarnabhumi airport has got a great deal worse in recent months. In the old days (like 3 years ago ), 45 – 60 minutes was a long wait. Now that's gone up to 90 – 120 minutes.

 

It's not just the old story that the airport has outgrown its design capacity. Now Immigration Department has finally admitted it doesn't have nearly enough staff - years after this was obvious to nearly everyone else. Early in the week in two Bangkok Post stories, the Immigration chief at the airport admitted he used to have over 1,300 staff. Now, because “267 officers were either promoted or moved to work elsewhere,” that had dropped to 1,045. His original staff could handle around 80,000 passengers a day, but the number now "has increased to between 160,000 - 180,000 per day" - and he has less staff!

 

Even so, in true Thai style, just a few days later on March 16, the Nation reported “an Immigration Police source said increasing checkpoint staff was not the answer, ‘All our checkpoints are being manned to full capacity. The problem is not shortage of personnel.’” Well! Make up your minds, gentlemen!

 

Add to this the utterly idiotic situation whereby the AOT is undergoing maintenance work and decided to close 2 out of the 3 Immigration areas at the same time, and you begin to understand the reason for the mounting anger and frustration at the length of Immigration queues. As a result, the fast track lines for first and business class passengers and the growing number of APEC Business Travel card holders were being suspended. So having angered economy passengers for years, BKK will now also have airlines’ premium passengers and frequent visit businessmen screaming at having to queue for hours.

 

Any rational airport management knows that with an airport already way beyond saturation point, you have to revamp your immigration and security areas in small steps, so that only a few desks are out of action at any one time. Clearly the AOT is run by people who plain just do not think!

 

And that’s not the only piece of lunacy! On February 11, nearly 40% of the airport Immigration staff had to be absent. Why? They were taking a “commissioned officer exam.”

 

Passengers who contribute to the widely-read Skytrax site have been particularly virulent. Her are just three recent comments –

 

“Times at passport control can be up to three hours. This airport's immigration arrangements are a joke.” 16 March 2012

 

“the immigration queue for departures is the most horrible I've ever experienced.” 13 March 2012

 

“I pass through this airport every month and every month I dread it. Huge queues for immigration - last time it took 1 hr 45 mins.” 5 March 2012

 

http://www.airlinequ...rum/bkk-suv.htm

 

A warning to anyone flying out on April 10 and 11, 12 just prior to Songran. Traditionally, this is the busiest time of year for departing flights. So make sure you arrive very early!

[Guest]

Clearly the AOT is run by people who plain just do not think!

 

The rational solution to this problem would be to sell off Don Mueang to an established private airport operator & allow them to compete head on with Suvarnabhumi for business.

Slightly better would be to encourage a competent independent private operator to build additional terminals & runways at Suvarnabhumi.

That would introduce true competitive pressure, which usually improves service over the long term.

[Guest fountainhall]

The rational solution to this problem . . .

Rational? You forget. This is Thailand!

[Guest joseph44]

Not very long ago, the idea was to move the domestic and low-cost carriers from Don Muang to Suvarnabhumi AP.

Then, Don Muang opened again (last week?) and after a lot of complaints from travelers regarding waiting time at Immigration 1 + 2 all the low cost carriers will move to Don Muang.

 

Let's wait and see...........time will learn. 3 More months before new floods will appear and Don Muang will be flooded again, of course not until AirAsia, Nok, Bangkok Airways, OrientThai are full in operation at Don Muang.

[Guest fountainhall]

Joseph44 raises a key issue that is of major concern to the lccs. Some have now moved back and forth 3 times, each time incurring huge expense. Not unreasonably, they want a guarantee from the AOT that if they do move to Don Mueang in the near future, they will not have to move back to BKK within a reasonably long period of time.

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/285362/move-budget-airlines-to-don-meuang

 

I read another article in the Bangkok Post Business section today by someone from the Institute of Management Consultants in Thailand. He inexplicably states this -

 

From my experience as a frequent traveller, the congestion and delays in processing passengers both through ticketing counters and immigration (departures and arrivals) has only been evident over the last six to eight weeks. In my view, it was a supply chain problem waiting to be solved, and not one that would be fixed by activating an alternate airport.

 

Only evident in the last 6 - 8 weeks? Unless he has been travelling exclusively on business class with fast track immigration, that is patently quite absurd. He goes on -

 

After weeks of being caught in one- or two-hour queues, which used to take just minutes to clear, it was quite apparent to me that there was a scheduling issue with ticketing staff and immigration. At critical arrival times only 50% of immigration booths were manned and there were adjacent vacant check-in counters behind those allocated for the airlines.

 

Here I agree with him - with qualifications. Yes, if you depart/arrive at certain times of day, you breeze through Immigration. So, yes there is a scheduling problem. And yes, the AOT and Immigration Department should have found a way - despite the reduction in staff - to handle the peaks much more efficiently years before now. But, sorry Mr. author, at peak arrivals, I rarely saw anything like 50% of desks manned. At the afternoon peak 3 years ago, I counted about 24 desks out of about 80 manned in the 2 international areas. Nothing like 50%!

 

He then talks about the scheduling of flights themselves and removing bottlenecks. Good point! But quite absurd! An airport has very little leverage in mandating when flights can arrive and depart. Flights to Europe generally must depart in the late night slot because most European airports have nighttime curfews. TG and many airlines, especially those with aircraft which arrived the evening before, must have a slew of departures earlyish in the morning. They cannot have massively expensive aircraft and entire crews sitting around waiting for a less congested take-off slot. So ironing out the peaks and troughs can work only to an extremely limited degree.

 

The author reports that he had no problems with queues on his departure two days ago. He therefore assumes that the problems have been solved. On the basis of one departure??? The mind boggles! It is utterly nonsensical to suggest that an airport built with a capacity of 45 million can handle a projected 51 million this year and perhaps 56 million in 2013 without major bottlenecks, the more so when Immigration admits it is very understaffed.

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/tourism/285284/airport-mess-has-simple-solution

 

All these so-called experts - and others who base their opinions on a couple of round-trips a year - should be forced to take a couple of dozen round trips over a relatively short period of time, with at least half their departures and arrivals at the peak periods. Only then I will trust their judgments. Until then, I trust mine. I know what I have seen and I know what I have experienced in the last few years.

[Guest]

Rational? You forget. This is Thailand!

Well, the irrational is probably what's kept Thailand as a low gdp and hence low cost holiday destination for so long. So we benefit from that.

With more widespread rational decision making they could have been further down the path to riches along with Japan, South Korea & Singapore. In which case, our holidays would be more expensive.

[Bob]

And Swampy's problems are now garnering a bit more international attention per this CNN article today:

 

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/visit/trouble-bkk-critics-take-aim-bangkoks-crowded-international-airport-060746?hpt=hp_c4

[Guest fountainhall]

So, the CNN article has another couple of "experts", each with his own agenda to promote, making pronouncements about the one airport policy. This from a spokesperson for IATA -

 

“Bangkok is one of the main aviation hubs in the region –- alongside Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore -- and it needs to keep building a strong hub,” IATA spokesperson Albert Tjoeng told CNNGo.

 

"In the short term, Don Muang is fulfilling a vital role with relieving capacity. In the long term, that means focusing on one airport, not two . . ."

 

And this from the Chairman of the Pacific Area Travel Association –

 

"Everybody should start working together and stop reinventing the wheel. If they can do it in Hong Kong and Singapore, which have similar flight arrival patterns, why can’t they do it here?"

 

Gentlemen, did it escape your notice completely that Bangkok can never be like Hong Kong and Singapore? Why? Because each exclusively handles international traffic. They have absolutely no domestic destinations. Comparing them with BKK is just plain idiotic.

 

Plus they are funded by governments with huge political will and no lack of cash. As also reported on CNN and elsewhere, Hong Kong has just agreed in principle to build a third runway after reclaiming a vast area in the sea at a total cost of around US$11 billion (compare that with Suvarnabhumi's total cost of US$3.8 million). The expansion will include more terminals and enable HKG eventually to handle more than 97 million passengers.

 

http://www.cnngo.com...-airport-599743

 

Singapore, which handles less traffic than Hong Kong, is about to construct its fourth terminal. Whilst this is happening, the Thai government and the AOT have been discussing for years the expansion plans for BKK – and have not got much further than first base!

 

IATA represents airlines, and of course it wants just one airport. PATA represents tourist offices, airlines, hotels and other travel-related companies around the region. Of course they want a one-airline policy. A one airport policy will work only if the government and AOT find vast quantities of cash to expand BKK well beyond the planned expansion to 60 million passengers by 2016 (today it handles 51 million). Since that is clearly not going to happen, Bangkok will work perfectly well with two. After all, London, Paris, Moscow, New York, Milan, Rome, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul, Shanghai and goodness knows how may other cities manage it perfectly well.

[Guest fountainhall]

Too late to make the correction in the previous post. BKK cost US$3.8 billion - not miliion!!

[Bob]

Intuitively, it just seems to me that one properly-sized and efficient airport ought to be the long-term goal. Spending money to upgrade Don Muang and to build an adequate rail system between the two airports is, in my view, better spent elsewhere. And it'll take years to get a rapid transit system built between the two airports.....and, in the meantime, I have no desire whatsoever to slog through the traffic/flooding/whatever between Don Muang and Swampy.

 

I wonder what percentage of the people flying internationally into Bangkok are ultimately heading to Chiangmai (Thailand's second-biggest city) or Phuket? If the percentage was significant enough (20% or more?), why not improve the "international" parts of the Chiangmai and Phuket airports and avoid Bangkok altogether for those travelers? It'd be great if occasionally a flight from the US or Europe landed here instead of Bangkok. We apparently already have some sparse flights to Seoul and Taipei and, if I can ever get the schedules to match without going broke buying the tickets, I'll jump at it as I'd just as soon avoid Bangkok altogether. As an extra bonus, our airport immigration up here is a breeze!

[Guest fountainhall]

Despite my comments, I’m actually in favour of a single airport! I agree with IATA and PATA. The key issue, though, is that Swampy just is not big enough to handle either the present or the projected passenger throughput. It’s as plain and simple as that!

 

What is the point of expanding BKK to take 60 million people in 4 or 5 years time? It’s already at 51 million. By the time the new terminal and runway are open, throughput will be in excess of 60 million. What happens then? Do we go through the same problems all over again?

 

The obvious solution is to have a domestic terminal slightly apart from the international terminal. The domestic terminal should have immigration and security checks for those transiting between the terminals, and a secure underground automatic train linking the two. That way, connecting passengers from domestic flights do not need to be screened and checked on arrival at the international terminal. Equally, those transiting from international to domestic take the train first and then go through the formalities in the domestic terminal. This gets rid of the problem of screening all passengers in the international building.

 

But thinking this way is one thing. Making it happen is another. If the government and the AOT want just one airport, then they have to think way beyond a ceiling of 60 million and a budget of $3.8 billion. Just as Hong Kong is planning to double in size, Swampy has to at least look to 75 million with all the terminal facilities, staffing and other infrastructure to cope. Frankly, no government has proved it has either the money or the will. And until it does so – if ever – then two airports is the only realistic solution.

 

One last point. Two airports does not necessarily mean no domestic flights at BKK. If you look at Tokyo, Taipei, JFK and others, they still maintain a small domestic schedule to cater for at least some international passengers travelling on to local cities and vice versa. But you don’t get budget carriers. On the other hand, airlines generally seem to price one through ticket from, say, LAX to Phuket cheaper than two separate tickets.

[Bob]

The obvious solution is to have a domestic terminal slightly apart from the international terminal. The domestic terminal should have immigration and security checks for those transiting between the terminals, and a secure underground automatic train linking the two. That way, connecting passengers from domestic flights do not need to be screened and checked on arrival at the international terminal. Equally, those transiting from international to domestic take the train first and then go through the formalities in the domestic terminal. This gets rid of the problem of screening all passengers in the international building.

 

Absolutely agree that this is the obvious and intelligent solution. Which, unfortunately, constitutes two reasons it'll never happen here.

[Guest]

Have 3 runways & 3 terminals, with facilities to transfer luggage between them.

Terminal 1 could be run by the existing company & terminals 2 & 3 should be sold off to competing consortia, including proven world class airport operators.

 

The companies could decide for themselves when to expand or not & should be expected to compete for business.

 

Don Mueang could be sold to another company.

 

The immigration authority management should have KPIs including average & maximum passenger waiting times at immigration. The average should be less than 5 minutes, maximum 15 minutes. If the KPI is not achieved, the management should not get their bonus. Consistently fail to achieve it & they should be fired.

[Guest fountainhall]

The average should be less than 5 minutes

As I said earlier, I am a Permanent Resident of Hong Kong where all I have to do is put my ID card into a machine and get through in under 15 seconds. As for waiting time, never more than 1 minute!

 

I believe London's Heathrow is owned by a Spanish company. I have often arrived early in the morning and then had to spend more than 10 minutes in the EU queue! Yet, I'm also a UK citizen! But then UK governments have consistently rejected proposals to issue citizens with ID cards. Something about infringing on personal liberties, I believe

[Guest]

No need for ID cards. It is technically possible for machines to read passports & especially the new chipped European ones. Some UK airports have machines to read passports and process people, it's just that they're installed only within the last couple of years & so far I've only ever seen them working once. The obvious solution is to have many of these machines & no queues.

[Guest anonone]

A couple of distinct issues being discussed.

 

I am a big fan of the automated immigration kiosks, in whatever form they take. Heck, even the US now uses them, though in a very limited way (have to pass background checks, etc before being able to use them). As fountainhall has said, less than a minute and no waiting in lines. Brilliant.

 

As for BKK, the immigration lines is the easiest issue to solve. Hiring more staff or even a minor construction project to increase the number of immigration desks is not a major effort. From what I am seeing, the situation is much better now. Perhaps due to the "female riot police" or changing the line system, I am not sure. Of course, we are no longer in the peak travel season either.....

 

The capacity of BKK to handle passenger traffic is the issue much harder to solve. It is going to take years and a large amount of funds, which is always difficult for governments to manage. A single airport system is probably the right way to proceed, as it greatly simplifies airline schedules and connection issues. But that means constructing terminals and runways while keeping existing operations going. A much more complicated task.

 

I am not very familiar with the O&D figures for BKK (origin and destination traffic - not passengers connecting to other flghts). But as a typical hub system, Thai Airways is not going to fly routes directly to CNX or HKT from outside Thailand, absent unusual circumstances. Their schedules are designed to bring everyone through BKK and then onto their further destinations, if applicable.

 

There might be a place at Don Muang for LCC type operations to be maintained. If the passenger counts can support O&D traffic to the city of Bangkok, without the need to connect to further destinations, then this can work. This would be simliar to Midway airport at Chicago, except with an international section. Any plan that would involve regular transfers between Don Muang and BKK is not going to work, for a number of reasons. They need to be able to operate and be sustained individually.

[Guest fountainhall]

Any plan that would involve regular transfers between Don Muang and BKK is not going to work, for a number of reasons.

Whilst I agree that one airport is the ideal, I totally fail to see why transferring from BKK to Don Mueang and back is such an issue! Sure, it's a problem for those trasnferring. But as I have stated, passengers in London transfer in major numbers between Heathrow and the main lcc airports - Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead. I have several times had to transit between JFK and LGA for a domestic connection, and once spent almost 3 hours getting from Gatwick to Heathrow. I didn't enjoy it, but I accept it because there is no other choice. Here in Asia, passengers regularly have to transfer between airports in several major cities.

 

Why, therefore, will it not work? I agree it's a hassle. But remember that if Air Asia and Thai Air Asia move to Don Mueang, you already have a considerable lcc hub. TG will almost certainly stay at BKK and so there is another hub.

 

The main difficulty will be for those switching between lccs and full service carriers. But those travelling on full service carriers will probably argue that they deserve the more seamless connection, if only because they pay more for their tickets!

 

It will be interesting to see how BKK copes with the Songkran rush.

[Guest aot87]

IM flying out of bkk at 2030 on a week day, my first departure at this time. What hold ups should i expect at check in and passport control

[Guest anonone]

 

There might be a place at Don Muang for LCC type operations to be maintained. If the passenger counts can support O&D traffic to the city of Bangkok, without the need to connect to further destinations, then this can work. This would be simliar to Midway airport at Chicago, except with an international section. Any plan that would involve regular transfers between Don Muang and BKK is not going to work, for a number of reasons. They need to be able to operate and be sustained individually.

Whilst I agree that one airport is the ideal, I totally fail to see why transferring from BKK to Don Mueang and back is such an issue! Sure, it's a problem for those trasnferring. But as I have stated, passengers in London transfer in major numbers between Heathrow and the main lcc airports - Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead. I have several times had to transit between JFK and LGA for a domestic connection, and once spent almost 3 hours getting from Gatwick to Heathrow. I didn't enjoy it, but I accept it because there is no other choice. Here in Asia, passengers regularly have to transfer between airports in several major cities.

 

Why, therefore, will it not work? I agree it's a hassle. But remember that if Air Asia and Thai Air Asia move to Don Mueang, you already have a considerable lcc hub. TG will almost certainly stay at BKK and so there is another hub.

 

The main difficulty will be for those switching between lccs and full service carriers.

 

 

Sure, a transfer is possible. As noted, you have done it between LGA & JFK, as well as LHR & LGW. I am just not sure how feasible it will be for use on a regular basis in BKK as a method for connecting flights.

 

Typically, legacy carriers and LCC do not share ticketing functions or code share flights with LCCs. Thai Airways is not going to sell you a ticket with the first leg on TG and the second leg on Air Asia.

 

If you purchase a ticket on Air Asia out of Don Muang, it is your responsiblity to allow enough time to get to the airport for your flight. If you are coming into BKK on TG and the flight is delayed, you are out of luck. Not many people understand this when booking these types of itineraries. What is the MCT (Minimum Connection Time) you would be comfortable with under these conditions?

 

I can imagine that Bangkok has enough O&D traffic to support some LCC activity out of Don Muang. I would consider using it for certain trips. For instance, where I arrive in BKK, spend a couple of days in Bangkok, then want to visit Siem Riep or Chang Mai. This would work well.

[Guest fountainhall]


1. Typically, legacy carriers and LCC do not share ticketing functions or code share flights with LCCs. Thai Airways is not going to sell you a ticket with the first leg on TG and the second leg on Air Asia.



 

2. If you purchase a ticket on Air Asia out of Don Muang, it is your responsiblity to allow enough time to get to the airport for your flight. If you are coming into BKK on TG and the flight is delayed, you are out of luck. Not many people understand this when booking these types of itineraries.

 

3. What is the MCT (Minimum Connection Time) you would be comfortable with under these conditions?

 

1. Surely the same is true with Easyjet and Ryannair in London - and with most lccs almost anywhere, especially if the transfer is international to domestic or vice versa? British Airways, Virgin etc. won't sell you a through ticket in either direction. But people still make the longish transfers from Stanstead and Luton airports to/from Heathrow because they save money.

 

The successful lcc business model is to fly into the cheapest airports possible to keep fares low. Most lccs fly regional routes. They are not intended to connect with specific international flights. So in Rome they fly into Ciampino. But all intercontinental flights depart from Fiumicimo. Why should passengers object to Bangkok being any different?

 

2. I fully accept your point. But again that it true when you travel on any lcc. Unless you are travelling point-to-point, you always take a risk, especially when you transfer. I took a risk two years ago when I booked to Hanoi on Air Asia. I then booked a CX return from BKK to Singapore to return four hours prior to the Hanoi flight - more than 3 times BKK's minimum connecting time. But then Air Asia cancelled the evening flight and put me on the morning one! I had absolutely no way of getting compensation from Air Asia because the conditions of booking with all lccs in Asia permit them to cancel flights for any reason!

 

Lets face it. The same would be true of you were flying in to BKK on TG and that TG flight was delayed by 3 hours. You'd almost certainly miss your lcc connection.

 

3. I honestly have no idea how much time I would allow for a transfer. Going back to the London example, the BAA’s recommended minimum connecting time is 3 hours for transfer between Heathrown and Gatwick – a distance of 30 miles. Well, if I had allowed that, I would have missed my trans-Atlantic flight, because the journey took me almost that length of time. I had allowed 5 hours – thankfully.

 

In Bangkok, much depends on time of day and how the transfer is made. As I suggested in another post, the sensible suggestion is either for AOT to contract out a limousine coach service between the airports, or for passengers to take the Airport Express train to Makkasan and then an alternative limousine coach service between Makkasan and Don Mueang.

 

So: immigration and customs clearance – 1 hour? 15 minutes waiting time and 15 minutes train trip? I don’t know how close Makkasan is to the expressway. I guess it could take as little as 25 minutes and as long as an hour. Then 30 minutes for your domestic check-in.

 

That takes up 3 hours, of which 90 minutes is the actual transfer. A direct coach service could do it in less. But it all depends on traffic. So, since you asked a specific question, I’d allow 3 1/2 - 4 hours as the minimum connecting time.

[Guest anonone]

i think we are talking about the same things. I don't see many people willing to undertake the transfer process between the two airports on a regular basis. Maybe we just have a difference of opinion on how many people will do this.

 

Also to clarify, there is protection when booking an itinerary on the same PNR (ticket) and a flight is delayed. If your first flight is delayed, it is the airlines responsibilty to get you onto your destination. If you book as seperate tickets (regardless if lcc or not), they have no responsiblity for your onward travel.

[Guest fountainhall]

On a regular basis, it would be extremely frustrating, I agree. However, anyone coming from Chiang Mai, say, could get a through ticket on TG. I have not done any checking, but Chiang Mai/London/Chiang Mai on TG ought to be cheaper than CNX/BKK/CNX added to BKK/LHR/BKK. That might suit regular travellers. As for budget travellers, much depends on what ticketing policy TG adopts once the lccs are moved over. It may offer a number of domestic tickets at a more competitive rate to get more traffic directly to BKK. In London, BA has reasonably competitive domestic prices into Heathrow and Gatwick if you book far enough in advance.

 

And it should only be the intercontinental flights which present the main problem when the lccs are transferred to Don Mueang. Since Air Asia would have its hub there, a regional transfer becomes a simple matter - provided Air Asia permit what they have finally agreed at KL which is through ticketing. Usually lccs ticket only sector by sector, as far as I am aware.

[Guest fountainhall]

The cabinet has finally approved the AOT plan to "fully reactivate" Don Mueang to reduce congestion at Suvarnabhumi and to become the nation's low cost carrier hub. Let's hope they also start work very quickly on a link between the airports, or an extension of the Airport Express train on from Makkasan or Phaya Thai to Don Mueang.

 

http://www.bangkokpo...g-plan-approved

[Bob]

While they may have no choice for a while, it intuitively seems to me to be too expensive and too inconvenient to have two airports. But, for a whole lot of reasons, I don't expect any long-term intelligent solution to just about anything in Thailand.

 

I'll fly whatever flight goes from Chiangmai to Suvarnabhumi as the only reason I ever go down to Bangkok is to get on an international flight; however, I now have a new option - Chiangmai direct to Seoul via Korean Air and that may end up as my new route out of the country (at least to and from the states). As an added bonus, I can go through immigration in Chiangmai (that's fairly easy and fast).

[Guest]

They just need to take the next intelligent step and sell Don Mueang off and have it independently run as a COMPETING airport.