What's wrong with two airports?

[Chris-TH]

I think the answer is pretty obvious (for THAI). If the published figures are correct, they have a revenue of about 600M on their DM services, but operating costs are about 640M. That means an annual loss of 40M. An airline is a business and not a charity organization so there are two options:

1. Move the domestic service back to Suvi.
2. Increase the airfares by 10-15% for the services out of DM.

DM was reopened for two reasons... 1. To take load off Suvi while repairs were carried out. 2. The Airforce have revenuesharing (as far as I know) on the airport fees.

[Markman]

At the moment two airports seems like a deal for Thailand, DonMuang should stay open.

First, it will create job, and maintain the industries that support the DonMuang Airport. Which we need to boost the
Thai economy, no matter how small.

Second, Its already opens, to close it and move back there will be cost.

[Andy Low]

It is good to have 2 Airports at two different locations i.e. One for International cum Domestic for travellers who are coming in from small provinces to connect onto International Flights. The 2nd one will of course strictly for Domestic Travellers only. With this arrangement, Suvarnabhumi Airport will not swarm with Domestic Flights Travellers and will certainly ease the congestion of the International Airport. At the same time, Domestic Travellers will also benefit with faster time to get out of the airport.

[duck1]

Having two airports in Bangkok, Don Muang (DMK) and Suvarnabumi (BKK), benefits the consumer and airlines – it gives choice. But for the owner of the two airport it doesn’t make sense to have both airports competing for scheduled flights, best to only allow scheduled services to operate from one airport, preferably from the more modern and expensive one with more shops.

BKK airport is a vital step in modernising Thai aviation and strengthen its industry, attracting more airlines into using Bangkok as a hub. Sure it’s had its problems and difficulties in the beginning, but most new airports, if not all, have. An uncertainty is whether BKK airport can handle all scheduled services in and out of Bangkok? One of the reasons why there are airlines operating from DMK at the moment.

I feel that if there is sufficient demand from airlines and the consumer to keep DMK in operation for scheduled flights, then keep it open. Bangkok is a big city and people living north of it would probably prefer to fly with their domestic carrier from DMK. Budget airlines probably prefer operating some of their domestic flights from DMK due to lower cost and lower traffic congestion. Also, having two airports in Bangkok could strengthen competition against SIN and KUL airports, it might attract more regional carriers.

DMK has good infrastructure for both cargo and passenger operations - it would be a shame to waste it. But at the end of the day it’s a commercial decision from the owner

[saensing]

a bit late may be

Two airports is the best for passenger more choice.
Create job. both
reduce congetion In Suvan
Train link forn don meung to Makasa then connecting airport link will benefit both airports.
Or Shutter bus link donmeuang and Suvan

London has 5 aiports not four.
Incl London city airport.
Paris has 2 major airport and three budget airport.


max UK

[Paul Helsel]

Two airports is the perfect solution. After 20 years of flying heavy aircraft, I have some knowledge of the ins and outs of airports and aviation matters. First, expanding Suvarnabhumi will not only be costly but cause more friction with nearby residents, resulting in more delays. Suvarnabhumi will reach capacity in no time at all, when the tourism gets back to normal. Second, having a second airport in a city this size makes sense to relieve congestion and as a back up. The current crop of politicians are not only inept but have absolutely no knowledge of how the aviation system runs. I need only cite the stupid remarks made by the Transportation Ministry when the crash occured at Phuket last year. That Minister may no longer be there, but the replacement is just as inept. Ministers in this country are assigned by political pull and not for their knowledge of the position.

[Sean Moran]

Yeah! Too right!

If they had any sense at all, then they'd just make it Suvarnabhumi for non-smoking flights and Don Muang for smoking flights.

---o0o---

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Mr Helsel.

[noobie]

Hi everyone,

I agree with your comments because nothing perfect like "Double Edge Sword". Anyway a little more concerned are:
1) 2 airports in the small city is not a good idea in many reasons; More operating costs (Of course, Costs will include in the ticket prices), confusions (Some foreigners still have confuse which one is the Bangkok Airport ?), time (in case of transfer frome Internation flight to domestic) & Difficult to manage Air Traffic (because they are too close).
2) If the government hadn't built a new airport, the old airport would has no sufficient capacity to operate the larger airline business.
So I think there is only one airport in the city is the best idea, but which one is better? I don't know. The problem is no plan before they built. It is like a problem that we often see on the roadside, the workers come every year to dig. Some for expand the sewer, some expand the electricity systems etc.

Sry for my poor English, if you have any comments about my English or my companions pls send me mail. I'll appreciate that.
Thx.

[noobie]

Sry for mistake

companions => opinions

my bad

[terry]

what about my point:

Don Mueang is all domestic, I'm pretty sure, so, yes, it creates problems for international travellers, who would have to travel a fair distance for example getting off an international flight and then getting over to Don Mueang for a connecting domestic flight.

Even with a hi speed train, it would be an annoyance I should think!

For two airports to be practical, there would have to be international flights to Don Mueang as well, and I don't believe the Thai government is considering such an option.