Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 20 July 2004 2055 hrs

Singapore to build Asia's first air terminal for budget carriers

By Bridgette See, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Asia's first air terminal just for budget carriers will be built at Changi Airport by 2006. The long-awaited decision comes after Tiger Airways, the low-cost carrier partly owned by Singapore Airlines, agreed to operate from the no-frills facility.

Unlike the two existing terminals at Changi Airport, the new S$45 million budget terminal will be more spartan. There won't be any travellators, aerobridges nor holding rooms. Passengers will have to take a shuttle bus to the airplane. And if they are transiting through from Terminal 1 or 2, they will have to haul their bags onto a shuttle and check-in again.

The new terminal will be built next to the SATS inflight catering centre and is about a five minute shuttle ride from the main terminals. The new facility is about the size of three football fields, about 10 times smaller than Terminal 1 or 2. The only luxuries are air-conditioning, money changers, food outlets and duty-free shops. But for cost-conscious travellers, using the new budget terminal will mean paying up to 20 percent less airport tax.

But security won't be compromised, and passengers will still pay the same security tax as before. "We will still be putting in the same type of explosive detection system we have in the low-cost terminal as in Terminal 1 and Terminal 2," said Foo Sek Min, deputy director of airport management at CAAS.

But besides Tiger Airways, other low-cost carriers are still weighing the pros and cons of the budget terminal. "At this moment, our passengers are enjoying the luxury of a full service terminal. They're paying the cost of it. We need to weigh where the impact of the savings will come. And if it's a great impact on savings, we will certainly make a logical decision on whether to move or not to move," said Valuair executive director Jimmy Lau.

The budget terminal is likely to handle up to 2.7 million passengers a year, about one-tenth the traffic in the main terminals. - CNA

When do you invite me in your country? lol :D

^
Thats great news for both Changi and budget carriers........:eek::D

I dissagree completely... I think this is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Speaking from the point of view of a coach passenger this is just further economic segregation and a perpetuation of the idea that some people don't deserve basic accomidations. Undoubtedly others will follow this cost-saving step, making the commute for Joe Traveller a lot more uncomfortable than it allready is. But I doubt any Raffles class customers will be too upset at the absence of their pooer brothren in the regular terminal. Can we still use the same drinking fountains?

Looks like budget travellers will get what they pay for, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad!?

Depends on how you look at it seriously. Introduction of budget aviation does two things....offer a choice for existing aviation users, and open it up for those who previously could never dream of being on a plane. For the former in particular, it was often a conscious choice between the two options. Budget aviation has not shut down economy travel so far..in fact, is seems to have helped drag down prices in full service economy fares instead. Not all budget aviation users are poor, and vice versal. And for the later, it is of even more concern to them, that the total expenditure needed be as low as is reasonably possible. Not everyone sees a need to pay a hefty airport tax with over-the-top facilities and comfort when they are going to board a plane which dosent even offer free drinks.

And honestly to me, this idea of everyone drinking from the same fountain is an idealistic notion at best, if not being pure utopian. Even in existing terminals as we know of today, some terminal space and facilities are already clearly segregated between those who are willing and able to pay, and those who don't.

Doesn't sound good when they talk about literally creating a budget terminal for budget airlines - London Stansted is base for Ryanair and Easyjet (Europe's largest budget airliners), yet is still a nice, atmospheric and peaceful airport without being tacky, lacklustre or having that "low-cost look". Its far nicer than Heathrow for a start and will be comparable to the new Terminal 5 (although there will be blatant difference due to age for instance) :)

It won't be "tacky" for a start......there are news that the terminal will be modern and simple....... :)

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/7/21/business/8484055&sec=business

Wednesday July 21, 2004
Budget air terminal ready by 2006

Singapore's S$45mil airport terminal for budget carriers will be ready by early 2006, a government agency said, helping the city-state to attract more flights as demand for low-cost travel rises.

The terminal, which will be built at Changi International Airport, would be able to handle 2.7 million passengers a year, said Foo Sek Min, the deputy director of airport management for the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore.

The proposed terminal is key to Singapore's bid to maintain its status as one of Asia's busiest and most popular airports to draw businesses and investors to the city-state.

''It's going to be functional, simple and modern, single-storey but won't resemble other terminals,'' Foo said.

The terminal has received commitments from Tiger Airways, which is partly owned by Singapore Airlines Ltd, and the investment arm of the Ryan family, which started Europe's largest low-cost carrier Ryanair Holdings Plc.

The government will start the bidding process for the design and construction of the new terminal tomorrow, and expects to close the tender in September. – Bloomberg

It is kind of distinguishing thoughts apart from unitive and integration concept to whose implying for mass transportation orientation

More and less to be reviving of caste system back to nowadays :)

But originality design obviously

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 20 July 2004 2247 hrs

Valuair, AirAsia keep options open on Changi's proposed budget terminal
By Chua Chin Chye, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Newcomer Tiger Airways has already agreed to operate from the low-cost carrier terminal to be built at Changi, but a check with other budget carriers show that they are mostly still keeping their options open.

Valuair, which has been in business for three months, says it will wait and see.

"We have to reflect on the Valuair model. At this moment, our passengers are enjoying the luxury of a full service terminal. We are, at this moment, doing very well in carrying cargo to all the destinations that we serve. To move it to a budget terminal, we have to take into consideration whether that will impede our cargo operations as well," said Jimmy Lau, executive director of Valuair.

Valuair now flies to Jakarta and Bangkok. By year-end, it will add two more destinations and introduce inter-lining, whereby passengers can switch to other airlines as part of their journey.

So the new terminal's location, five minutes away from the main terminals, does not help.

But Valuair foresees a situation where it may operate from the budget terminal -- to compete purely on costs. But that will be on top of its full-service flights.

"We could. Some destinations maybe. We could add variety into our operations down the line. I don't know yet. We will see what the competition does. We will have to move with the market," said Mr Lau.

As for Malaysia-based AirAsia, it says it is awaiting more details, and would have to study them before making any comment.

AirAsia now flies to Singapore, but uses Senai in Johor as its aviation hub.

Australia's JetStar, the latest to enter the budget carrier scene here, was not available for comment.

The no-frills terminal will be built at Changi Airport by 2006. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

Here's an idea....
....any flight less than four or five hours should be on a low-cost carrier.
....six hours and beyond should be a full-service carrier.

Doesn't sound good when they talk about literally creating a budget terminal for budget airlines - London Stansted is base for Ryanair and Easyjet (Europe's largest budget airliners), yet is still a nice, atmospheric and peaceful airport without being tacky, lacklustre or having that "low-cost look". Its far nicer than Heathrow for a start and will be comparable to the new Terminal 5 (although there will be blatant difference due to age for instance) :)
Before the firm plans for the terminal design are even available, I would suppose it is premature to judge, isnt it? ;)

Anyway I was led to expect worse before this annoucement. The initial plan is to have a terminal devoid of even air-conditioning, something unthinkable in tropical Singapore? It already led to people here imagining the good old days of huge fans over a shed-like structure fully exposed to the weather.

Well, looks like our worse fears were unfounded, and there is even shops to boot? Ok maybe it isnt that bad afterall. Anyway, the convenience of being right within and sharing the infrastructural facilities of one of the best airports in the world for superb connectivity still beats the London setup of having multiple airports all over the place. :D

Oh, and there are shuttle buses to take you to the planes? That was another surprise...better then having to drag your luggage to the plane on foot even during snowy weather in some European airports? ;)

Yeah but there is a slight problem between Singapore and London - one is the worlds largest air hub.......the other isn't! I couldn't really imagine an airport with a capacity of around 120mppa (which would be 4X Changi pre-SARs!!!) increasing to around 300-400mppa by around 2030!!!!! Such a large airport would be unthinkable now.........but by 2030 Heathrow and Stansted will have to be able to handle some 120mppa people, Gatwick hopefully some 110mppa.

Either way - Stansted is on target to becoming the worlds largest airport (129mppa) - growth I suspect that negates Changi and its still a budget airport ;)

Hell there was even a proposal for a super-airport to the east of London called Cliffe (although a judicial review may yet see a super-airport constructed there) - which would mean it would be the 6th international airport for London.

However you have to remember a few things: Singapore is but a small collection of islands - London is the capital of a far larger population and land mass - thus we can afford just a bit more to spread airports around. Hell I bet you would be pissed off if Singapore was London that the airport was on the other side of the city and you had to trek ALL the way around to get there - no matter how good the transport links. In other words - London covers the north: Luton + Stansted; south: Gatiwck and west: Hathrow (Cliffe would have been the east). Geography as you have to admit is slightly different between England and Singapore ;)

I'm also still upset that I can't get on a high speed train from Singapore to Melaka or Kuala Lumpur, unlike certain European countries ;)

Yeah but there is a slight problem between Singapore and London - one is the worlds largest air hub.......the other isn't! I couldn't really imagine an airport with a capacity of around 120mppa (which would be 4X Changi pre-SARs!!!) increasing to around 300-400mppa by around 2030!!!!! Such a large airport would be unthinkable now.........but by 2030 Heathrow and Stansted will have to be able to handle some 120mppa people, Gatwick hopefully some 110mppa.

Either way - Stansted is on target to becoming the worlds largest airport (129mppa) - growth I suspect that negates Changi and its still a budget airport ;)

Hell there was even a proposal for a super-airport to the east of London called Cliffe (although a judicial review may yet see a super-airport constructed there) - which would mean it would be the 6th international airport for London.

However you have to remember a few things: Singapore is but a small collection of islands - London is the capital of a far larger population and land mass - thus we can afford just a bit more to spread airports around. Hell I bet you would be pissed off if Singapore was London that the airport was on the other side of the city and you had to trek ALL the way around to get there - no matter how good the transport links. In other words - London covers the north: Luton + Stansted; south: Gatiwck and west: Hathrow (Cliffe would have been the east). Geography as you have to admit is slightly different between England and Singapore ;)

I'm also still upset that I can't get on a high speed train from Singapore to Melaka or Kuala Lumpur, unlike certain European countries ;)
Hmm..and what does all that got to do with terminal design, and the ease of transfers between the budget terminal and regular terminals, the two points I pointed out earlier and your entire thesis here basically was talking about something else?

I was actually addressing your connectivity issue - you were comparing the reasonable Changi to the entire London hub and I elaborated on this point :yes:

I also said you don't need a no-frills terminal for budget aircraft and London Stansted which is essentially a dedicated budget airport - infact the report you posted is highly negative about the new terminal - it literally is the bare bones and sounds worse in service than Luton (another airport dedicated to budget airlines) airport which is possibly the worst London international airport!!

Location map on the Chinese press(Lianhe Zaobao):

The red portion at the lower left is where the budget terminal is located( on the right is Changi T2, T1 and T3 (anticlockwise))
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ylstan01/Airport/DSCN18711.jpg

oh.

i thought singapore was gonna create the world's first co-ed naked soccer team. oh well...

Note the highlighted part of the article........

This story was printed from TODAYonline

CAAS to build low-cost carrier terminal

Tiger Airways agrees to operate from new facility

Wednesday • July 21, 2004

Tay Tsen-Waye
waye@newstoday.com.sg

IT WAS exactly as Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong had promised last month.

As long as one airline signed on the dotted line confirming its interest in using a terminal dedicated to low-cost carriers (LCC), the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) would start building one immediately.

Yesterday, CAAS said that Tiger Airways — 49 per cent owned by Singapore Airlines and expected to begin operations by the year end — had inked an agreement indicating its firm commitment to operate from the new LCC facility.

Beginning today, CAAS is calling for bids to design and construct a $45-million terminal at Changi for low-cost carriers. The tender is expected to close in September, with the contract being awarded at the end of the year. The terminal should be ready by early 2006.

CAAS deputy director (airport management) Foo Sek Min said that the new building — Asia's first dedicated LCC terminal — will be key to expanding Singapore's status as a regional aviation hub.

With operating and maintenance charges 20 per cent lower than full-service terminals, LCCs will save money for passengers and the airlines, said Mr Foo.

The new terminal will be functional — there will be no gate holding rooms, travellators and aerobridges for the one-storey terminal, he said.

But, it will be air-conditioned, with the same level of security and safety. A regular shuttle bus will transport transit passengers to the other Changi terminals, some five minutes away.

For a start, the building will have a handling capacity of 2.7 million passengers a year. There is room for expansion — more than double the capacity — should other airlines decide to use the terminal.

Mr Foo said that CAAS is currently in active discussions with two airlines and is also confident that a yet-to-be-named Qantas start-up is considering using it.

As whether other Asia-based low-cost airlines would join the fray, AirAsia said it was unable to comment, as it had just heard the news.

Singapore-based ValuAir — which started operating in May — said it welcomed the announcement but preferred to keep its options open for now.

"We will be in a good position to be able to compare costs savings once the new budget terminal comes on-line," said executive director Jimmy Lau.

Aviation analyst Chris Sanda from DBS Vickers said that new terminal would address the "issue that budget airlines and full-service network airlines have distinctly different type of needs".

"For the budget airline traveller, it's all about getting from point A to B and back," said Mr Sanda.

"So, for these people, cost management is going to be more important and specifically addresses the issues of budget airlines, which need to have the lowest possible cost structure. It helps differentiate a budget airline from a traditional network airline."

And to be an aviation hub, you need to make sure that people fly here, he said.

"You definitely need a terminal. Having hub status is essentially to have a best-in-class type of infrastructure."

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp503_210704.html

According to the Chinese press, the budget terminal's floor space would be 25000 sqm....:)

I was actually addressing your connectivity issue - you were comparing the reasonable Changi to the entire London hub and I elaborated on this point :yes:

I also said you don't need a no-frills terminal for budget aircraft and London Stansted which is essentially a dedicated budget airport - infact the report you posted is highly negative about the new terminal - it literally is the bare bones and sounds worse in service than Luton (another airport dedicated to budget airlines) airport which is possibly the worst London international airport!!
I dont think you quite understand what I was getting at. Say for example, I take a British Airways flight from Singapore to Heathrow, and then I wish to transfer to a budget flight to another destination in Europe. I will have to commute to another airport with luggage and everything in thow?

Compare that to you taking a Singapore Airlines flight into Singapore at Changi Airport, and taking a 5 min bus ride to the budget terminal within the same airport to connect to a budget flight?

That is the ease of connectivity I am talking about. I dont see how relevant that is to figures pertaining to passenger capacity and passengers handled which you elaborated at great length.

Singapore's physical size limitations simply does not allow for the space to build multiple airports from scratch. We do have a small airport at Seletar, but it was used for private chartered flights, and the runway is not even long enough for a B737 to land safely. It is sited in the middle of a residential area, and is not the best location to expand it into a huge budget aviation hub. Come to think of it, wont the siting of the facilities in another airport other then Changi result in as such segregation, if not worse, then building a new spanking one within the current airport?

Whats up with all these hype of budget airlines around the world?

JULY 21, 2004 WED

Low-cost airline terminal by 2006

By Karamjit Kaur

CHANGI will have a $45 million terminal for low-cost carriers by early 2006, as Singapore puts into motion plans to be the region's hub for budget airlines. The new building will not have frills such as aerobridges and VIP lounges, and will be a five minute bus ride away from the main terminals. Singapore Airlines-backed Tiger Airways has said it will use the terminal. The decision to build, announced yesterday, comes seven months after Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong revealed plans for such a terminal.

Sited next to the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (Sats) In-flight Catering Centre 1, the single-storey building will be able to handle up to 2.7 million passengers a year. Terminal 1 can handle 21 million, and Terminal 2 another 23 million.

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore's deputy director of airport management Foo Sek Min said it is not taking a build-and-they-will-come approach, but taking it a step at a time, starting with six bays. 'We do not want to...build 10 or 20 aircraft parking bays if there are only going to be six or seven aircraft parked at any given time.' But if need be, the terminal can be expanded to accommodate more than seven million passengers.

The new terminal will be a 'different experience' for passengers used to the main terminals, but basic services will still be there, Mr Foo said. Shuttle buses will be provided between the new terminal and main buildings, and there will be no compromise on security or cleanliness. Luggage check-in facilities will be available, but passengers on connecting flights at the other terminals will have to carry their own bags there. Duty-free shops and eating places will also be set up.

This is what passengers will not have: Lifts, escalators, travelators and holding rooms before boarding. They will also have to walk to the aircraft in the open. Figures are still being worked out, but it is estimated that passengers will pay $18 or less in airport taxes compared to $21 now, while airlines will pay about 20 per cent less. In the meantime, budget airlines such as Thai AirAsia which already fly to Changi can use the existing two terminals.

With only one airline, Tiger Airways, committed to using the terminal so far, is it prudent to start building? Mr Foo said: 'The low-cost market is a new one and nobody knows how big it is going to be. But if it is going to grow and generate new traffic, Singapore wants to be the first to capture this market. So, since we have managed to get one customer who says he wants to use the terminal, we have agreed that we will proceed to build it.'

Budget terminals are designed to accommodate the quick turnaround time of low-cost airlines, usually with no more than 35 minutes on the ground before the aircraft takes off again. Qantas' new start-up here which, like Tiger, hopes to start flying by year-end, is still considering whether to use the budget terminal.

Valuair, Singapore's first budget airline, which started flying in May and is now using Terminal 1, is keeping its options open. Executive director Jimmy Lau said: 'We know how much Terminal 1 costs, so we will have to do some comparison. Because we carry cargo, our turnaround time is about 45 minutes. If the cost savings in using the new terminal is significant, we will have to review our options.' - The Straits Times

So it should be home for tiger, valuair and jetstar asia? is it located near T3 or in separated area?

cheers

So it should be home for tiger, valuair and jetstar asia? is it located near T3 or in separated area?

cheers

For location, refer to thread #16.

At the present, only Tiger has give confirmation on using the terminal. The other budget airlines are still discussing with the authorities......:)

I'm also still upset that I can't get on a high speed train from Singapore to Melaka or Kuala Lumpur, unlike certain European countries ;)

That is up to the Malaysian government, but why not a nice relaxed journey with a chance to catch the rustic countryside? ;)

Anyway with this new budget terminal in Changi, cheap and quick flights to Kuala Lumpur and the region will just be a step away from your arriving international flight :)

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 21 July 2004 2315 hrs

Air travellers cool to idea of no-frills terminal
By Johnson Choo, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Passengers flying through Changi Airport do not seem too keen about plans for a terminal just for budget airlines.

Even though airport tax and budget airline tickets will be cheaper, the idea of a no frills facilities and warnings of long check-in queues are weighing heavily on the minds of travellers.

Singapore is going ahead with plans to build a single-storey, no-frills terminal just for budget airlines.

There won't be any travellators nor aerobridges. And if you are coming from Terminal 1 or 2 you will have to haul your bags onto a shuttle bus to get there and check-in again.

Even though the terminal will be air-conditioned, some travellers aren't too hot about the plan.

"Not for me. If we have the best terminal, why do we have to go for a lower one?" said one businessman.

"I'm not interested. To some people yes; young people maybe. But if we're already old, I don't think I want to take a chance," a traveller said.

"For budget airlines, the need for luggage services cannot be avoided, since the luggage can be quite heavy for the tourists," said another.

Travellers say another reason is that many full-service airlines, which fly out of the much more comfortable Terminals 1 and 2, are fighting back with very competitively-priced tour packages.

They are so cheap that some travel agents say they make budget airlines look expensive.

Watt Lee of Megaline Travel said, "These packages offered by the full-service airlines are more established in the market. Compared to the budget airlines, where one has to find his own accommodation and attractions, these packages are much easier to promote and sell."

Over the past two months, prices of tour packages to the region, especially to Hong Kong and Bangkok, have dropped by some 30 percent, and the number of travellers has increased three times.

So it would appear that for budget airlines to be attractive, low airfares alone are not enough.

For example, it costs about S$160 to fly to Bangkok on Valuair.

But now tickets on Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways cost S$10 less.

"There is a market that has already been travelling very often; they will be very comfortable with full-service airlines. And because of their flexibility in their terms and conditions, their frequency of flights, then they would not change to a low-cost airline," said Alicia Seah of Sino-America Tours.

Nevertheless, the budget airline market in Asia has been expanding very rapidly and aviation authorities here expect the new budget terminal, which will be up by 2006, to handle 2.7 million passengers a year. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

I dont think you quite understand what I was getting at. Say for example, I take a British Airways flight from Singapore to Heathrow, and then I wish to transfer to a budget flight to another destination in Europe. I will have to commute to another airport with luggage and everything in thow?

Compare that to you taking a Singapore Airlines flight into Singapore at Changi Airport, and taking a 5 min bus ride to the budget terminal within the same airport to connect to a budget flight?[/I think we both don't understand each other - London is slightly different when compared to Singapore. One handles below 30mppa, the other handles some 125-135mppa. In other words you can make more connections as it is from Heathrow (and probably Gatwick as well) than Changi - afterall Heathrow is the worlds largest international airport handling some 2x more traffic than Changi!!! You'll also like to hear that a 6th terminal which will be dedicated to budget airlines but not skimpy in its interior is on the tables as soon as T5 is built :)

But I couldn't quite imagine an airport with some 120mppa capacity at this direct moment.....by 2030 yeah (well London will have to have two by then!). I honestly couldn't imagine a 120mppa mega airport for at least 20 more years.....but remember geography - the catchment area for London is far larger - infact its a global catchment area, but on the local level you have to remember that the "load" has to be distributed more evenly around the entire city - ie the north: Luton + Stansted; central: City; south: Gatwick; west: Heathrow. In other words - I suspect if Singapore had a far larger land mass and centralisation it would be in exactly the same position.



That is the ease of connectivity I am talking about. I dont see how relevant that is to figures pertaining to passenger capacity and passengers handled which you elaborated at great length.

Singapore's physical size limitations simply does not allow for the space to build multiple airports from scratch. We do have a small airport at Seletar, but it was used for private chartered flights, and the runway is not even long enough for a B737 to land safely. It is sited in the middle of a residential area, and is not the best location to expand it into a huge budget aviation hub. Come to think of it, wont the siting of the facilities in another airport other then Changi result in as such segregation, if not worse, then building a new spanking one within the current airport?London has the same problems - it doesn't really have a large plonk of land to which build an airport (Cliffe was an option) and the heritage body is always on its toes, as is everyone who lives close to the airports in question.....but Heathrow affects hundreds of thousands each day - its flight path is over the entire city for chrsits sake!!! Hell one of my friends lives some 500-1000m from the end of the runway of Stansted Airport in what is a 14th century coverted pub . Thankfully my house is a bit to the west and in the "island" created by circling aircraft (no crap being dropped on my house yet :lol: )

But either way - you can connect as it is from Heathrow far more than you can than from Changi. In the near future Stansted will soon expand to handle a more international role (ie the burden off of Heathrow growth) rather than the current budget airport it is. If you have ever been to Stansted you will know that its a tad far out of London but crucially goes into Liverpool Street at the heart of the as you have probably guessed - worlds largest financial centre.

The only problem we have had with the airport is to find that some idiot had parked their car in OUR drive, phoned for a taxi and gone on what was a weekend holiday to Europe........oh how stupid could he get - leaving his car in our drive with no consideration......but hey - the sugar in his tank and other problems weren't our problem - the car was on our property afterall :laugh:

I have no idea if you live close to Changi or not - but I guess if you did you probably haven't heard of these things as Singapore is an island :)

You are still not addressing my concerns at all, nick. It is almost as thou you are talking another language or to someone else.

I am talking about physical connectivity between a budget terminal and a regular terminal, and in London's case, a Budget airport and a regular airport. What does all these gotta do with us being an island?

Look - London is the worlds largest air hub. It has a far larger catchment area and thus a requirement to disperse its airports to allow maximum threshold and the reduced problem of bottlenecking. But as it is you can connect from Heathrow or Airport to a few smaller airlines - wallah :)

Well, then just answer the question. What are the options for a traveller who wish to transfer between airports in London? Is it convenient? Resonably affordable and comfortable?

Who needs another reminder about how overcrowded London's airports are?

Do any budget carriers fly to Heathrow?

I dont think Stansted will overtake Heathrow as the pre-eminent international hub will it? All the major airlines land in Heathrow and for me, its not too far from South Kensington :)

Its overcrowded because its seen exponential growth - There was no idea that Heathrow would become the worlds busiest international airport and that London would be the worlds largest air hub!!!

But what I was pointing at is that its a terminal within an airport which is troublesome to get to. The 6th Terminal planned for when T5 is completed will be to the north of the airport and will undoubtedly be connected to the terminal network via Crossrail/Heathrow Express and if not a spur of the Piccadilly, then a people mover to either T5 or the main terminals - the only problem is that the terminal and additional runway will require a very busy artery into London and the airport to be put "under" the runway if the latest plans are to be believed. But like I said - London Stansted is an airport dedicated to budget airlines BUT is not treated like a budget airport - it has everything a normal airport has and is just as nice as Changi ;)

We don't need to be reminded how overwhelmed (well Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City aren't) Heathrow is - I believe its 2 times over its design capacity - all you have to do is walk through it - its a literal maze (in a cool way :D) of a patchwork of hundreds of extensions over the decades. Unexpectedly - T5 will be larger than Terminals 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 combined and I can't remember where I heard it, but its just as big as LAX and probably comparable to other similar ancient airports! I expect that BAA will put forth plans to redevelop the main terminals 1 + 2 + 3 once T5 is up and running. If I was BAA, I would construct a mega terminal which would be shaped as a large fan and just like the movement of a cock - slowly progress clockwise - meaning the airport could keep at maximum capacity as possible. BAA know that this is the only way to maximise the capacity of above a Heathrow Airport with around a projected 2030 123mppa capacity (+t5 + t6 + rescheduling of flights).


Raffles - I believe a few "mini" carriers fly to Europe, but so does the likes of BA, etc, this is because the world's busiest air route is New York - London and connections can then be made to Europe via BA and other carriers. Stansted is however fully dedicated currently to budget airlines and is the base for Europe's largest: Easyjet and Ryanair - its their exponential growth which is pushing Stansted up in the capacity tables. HOWEVER - Stansted will gradually begin to absorb some of the international carriers that are located at Heathrow currently. This is simply because Stansted although further from London could possibly see a high speed rail link (as you might know Raffles - the Stansted Express currently leaves London Liverpool Street, stops at Tottenham Hale, Bishop's Stortford (my home town :D), Stansted Mountfitchet and then of course London Stansted Airport - it takes some 40mins, but as I live so close to the airport - we get "titbits" and rumours of possible transport upgrades. I've always thought a maglev connection would be good......but there is the possibility of a highspeed rail line into Liverpool Street (lol how many times I've kept saying this on the UK & Ireland forum I have no idea - but it will probably become true). Stansted will expand to somewhere between the 60-80mppa range by 2012 (an additional runway) and 129mppa by around 2030 (another 2 runways on top of that most likely). Gatwick won't see anything built ie runway or terminal wise, but the worlds largest air bridge has been put in place - it will allow the new super jumbos to arrive at Gatwick for instance until 2019 because of an agreement with the locals and the airport - it too could go over the 100mppa mark!!!! Luton may eventually reach 30mppa and City by around 9mn tops - its pretty insane if you ask me though!!!!!!!



But more importantly - can't any of you use your detective skills to worm out more details or possibly masking models :)

Well, if he STILL cant answer a simple question, then I suppose I have to ask raffie then....

What are the options available when it comes to trying to transfer between those airports in London? How do they compare with the setup in Singapore with the new budget terminal?

Well, if he STILL cant answer a simple question, then I suppose I have to ask raffie then....

What are the options available when it comes to trying to transfer between those airports in London? How do they compare with the setup in Singapore with the new budget terminal?

LOL

I havent tried the budget options available from London. I've always used Heathrow Terminal 3, although I flew Austrian via Vienna to Bangkok once using T2 - at cheap rates via the STA, but dont think that would be considered budget?:D

btw Heathrow T3 arrival hall sucks in the afternoon with at least 4 jumbo planes arriving at the same time..so I advise take the later flights that arrive in the evening.

Ya need to get out more huaiwei ;) - but here we go:
Gatwick which as you will know is larger than Changi and serves many international routes :)
- Ryanair
- Easyjet
- Bmibaby
- Flybe

Jesus Christ. If you could read English, my question was how do you get between Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. Its as simple a question as that! Whats all these stuff about traffic figures and airlines which still dosent answer the question??

Goodness gracious...

Say for example, I take a British Airways flight from Singapore to Heathrow, and then I wish to transfer to a budget flight to another destination in Europe. I will have to commute to another airport with luggage and everything in thow?
Odd I thought you said you wanted budget carrier transfers within the same airport :) and there you go - gatwick at least :)

But of course you either fly to the next airport or take a train or float to the next airport :laugh:

But like I keep saying - the airports have to be dispersed around the city - simply because there would be a massive backlog of some 120mppa+ at one airport. I dunno about you - but I would rather have a distribution of airports around London and you can if you select the right airports get on a budget. Face it - Singapore is a small airport city and the chances of a direct connection to Europe are far more troublesome because of the total large mppa figure (ie some 4-5x larger than that of Changi for instance) having to all be put somewhere - you see its all one big jigsaw peice and I was putting the peices together for you :). But don't worry the 14k posts are just getting to your head if you can't handle the big numbers ;)

But either way - there's a budget terminal on the table at Heathrow as at Changi - although t6 will have its own dedicated runway - is the Changi one likely to get its own runway? But safe to say - you can connect to other airports in London and catch a budget airline :)


Oh yeah just though I would remind ya that Emirates fly from Changi to London Gatwick - so you do have ACTUAL connections to the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair which are the largest budget carriers in Europe :)

Odd indeed, when none of the statements refer to transfers within the same airport. Duh.

"But of course you either fly to the next airport or take a train or float to the next airport"

I see. So you basically have to take a plane between Heathrow and Gatwick, for instance. How more intelligent can an answer be?

In the end, may I know how much relevance is a dedicated runway is to my questions, and even in regard to this entire discussion about a budget terminal in Changi Airport?

anyway didnt they just complete a new runway at Changi on the new reclaimed land?

Odd indeed, when none of the statements refer to transfers within the same airport. Duh.

"But of course you either fly to the next airport or take a train or float to the next airport"

I see. So you basically have to take a plane between Heathrow and Gatwick, for instance. How more intelligent can an answer be?

In the end, may I know how much relevance is a dedicated runway is to my questions, and even in regard to this entire discussion about a budget terminal in Changi Airport?

TALK ABOUT NOT READING MY POST :laugh:

Look at the last paragraph!!!!!!!! goodness gracious ME :lol:

Oh yeah just though I would remind ya that Emirates fly from Changi to London Gatwick - so you do have ACTUAL connections to the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair which are the largest budget carriers in Europe :)
Are you refering to a direct flight, or one with a stopover and a change of plane at Dubai, because I am 100% sure it is the later.

TALK ABOUT NOT READING MY POST :laugh:

Look at the last paragraph!!!!!!!! goodness gracious ME :lol:
You added the last paragraph after I started replying to you. I dont think you can blame me for that.

Btw, I updated my airport map....showing the location of the budget terminal:

http://img27.exs.cx/img27/5708/Aviation2.jpg

^
Is the budget terminal going to be in that shape??

The budget terminal seems bigger than T1(main terminal) in the map though in actual fact it's only about one tenth of T1's floor space......:eek:

Hmm....I think the area shown is inclusive of the aprons and all? I dont think the terminal will have such an odd shape! :D

amazing! it seems quite far from T2 but actually it shouldnt be that long

^
only about one busstop away from T2........:)

amazing! it seems quite far from T2 but actually it shouldnt be that long
It cant really be sited any closer thou....the rest are for the service buildings such as the inflight kitchens?

You added the last paragraph after I started replying to you. I dont think you can blame me for that.
Yes of course - jumping into the deep end of things :)

Yes of course - jumping into the deep end of things :)
So...do you have anything of substance left to say? Not to mention my question still lisnt answered adequately? ;)

Sounds good now that there are all the different carriers: AirAsia, Tiger Airways, Lion Air, etc. But the sector's still pretty new and untested. Many of these new carriers will fold, merge, or sell out, and bring down the new terminal's demand. Is Changi that strapped for room? Neat idea, though, I suppose.

Sounds good now that there are all the different carriers: AirAsia, Tiger Airways, Lion Air, etc. But the sector's still pretty new and untested. Many of these new carriers will fold, merge, or sell out, and bring down the new terminal's demand. Is Changi that strapped for room? Neat idea, though, I suppose.

Not really strapped of room....in fact there are more than enough. The problem is that the present terminals are built with full service carriers in mind......Hence, it might be slightly costly for LCC.

LCC are very cost concious....To cut cost, they might not want things like aerobridge and stuff. The budget terminal is built to address the cost issue.

The initial capacity is only 2.7 million and will only expand if there is a demand. Hence, you can see that Changi is being cautiously optimistic about the LCC market.

Thats true. The terminal is actually being built in a "modular" system...meaning it can be sequencially expanded according to demand, starting from 2.7 million to up to 7 million when fully completed. Its not exactly a huge plunge into a multi billion dollar gamble I would say.

Anyway, its not like the Singapore aviation establishments are the kind who sits around waiting for things to settle down before striking forward. This is most clear even in the very existance of Changi Airport itselfm a testiment of extreme forsight. Who would have known that an airport opened in 1981 can still fight tooth and nail with airports opened more then 20 years later, especially in the arena of service standards, something very uncommon in older airports

It's a case of excellent foresight to say the least? ;)

SATS kitchen from the airbridge.....
http://img73.photobucket.com/albums/v222/ylstan03/Airport/DSCN19841.jpg

Land plot used for the budget terminal(behind the fence); SATS kitchen on the left.....
http://img73.photobucket.com/albums/v222/ylstan03/Airport/pano11.jpg

So...do you have anything of substance left to say? Not to mention my question still lisnt answered adequately? ;)


Okay let little nicky help you in understanding how to take a plane from Changi to London and to then change onto a European budget carrier, as obviously you need help after 14,000+ posts :) I won't be telling you where your hand luggage needs to be put or where your emergency floatation device is either, nor where the emergency doors are - that's for you to learn ;)

You take a flight from: Singapore Changi Airport (as you live in Singapore) on an Emirates plane bound to London Gatwick Airport where you can then disembark and transfer to one of the many budget carriers such as Easyjet (http://www.easyjet.com/en/where/) and Ryanair (if you haven't heard of them, Google wil aid you in your quest to understand who they are :)) and then fly to whereever you want to go in Europe :)

If your answer has not been met by now - i suggest asking somebody like Raffles to plan a little journey for you, guide you on to a plane to London and to then on to whereever you want to float ya boat :)

Hahaha.....thanks for the (overly) informative post, but I think you forgot a line I made earlier...

I want to take a DIRECT flight to London. (Which idiot will take a non-direct flight involving a change of plane when there are more than enough direct flights available? :) )

Replan my itinerary now! :D

Who doesn't want to go to Dubai!!!

Anyway unless your a wanna-be DVT sufferer the connection will do you a hell of good: enough time to do a bit of shopping (of which Dubai excels in my humble opinion more than that of Singapore), experience the local delights and customs, the skyline before getting on another flight for London - its how I've travelled the world, but made the "connecting" flights week long holidays in their own right, all fresh for flying into the greatest city on the planet :laugh:

Who doesn't want to go to Dubai!!!

Anyway unless your a wanna-be DVT sufferer the connection will do you a hell of good: enough time to do a bit of shopping (of which Dubai excels in my humble opinion more than that of Singapore), experience the local delights and customs, the skyline before getting on another flight for London - its how I've travelled the world, but made the "connecting" flights week long holidays in their own right, all fresh for flying into the greatest city on the planet :laugh:
:laugh:

So I see nothing more then a cheap attempt to avoid unaswering my question?

And for your reminder, its pretty strange how it all came to this. What I merely asked you from the beginning was if you could explain the transportational options should someone need to transfer flights based in different London airports.

You refused to give cohesive and to-the-point answers. This is the result.

Actually no I was trying to get across to you the larger picture - of the whole air hub acting as a unit to try and deliver up to the extreme demands placed upon it! But like I said previously you take the tube, train, taxi or bus. I guess that you haven't been to London before cause you would obviously know how it all works together like some gigantic organism.....just try to imagine the SMRT East-West line into Raffles Place. But its obviously more problematic when the entire system of urban London encompasses some 600 stations.

But you haven't elaborated on your questions even though I said you could drive, take a train or bus/coach........ for example flying from Changi to Heathrow to go to Gatwick - what. London has 5 international airports: Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City! What connections, preferable transport options or carrier, flights from where, connections, stop overs............. you see the bigger picture is what is needed to understand the minute detail here :)

"Bigger picture" perhaps, although to see from a "common" perspective, it just looks like yet another typical excuse of yours to hijack every thread possible to spam your agenda. "Common" perspective, yes, because I am quite obviously not alone in "picking on" you. Afterall, you jolly well know your own status by now in this forums.

Well I certainly have never been to London, and safe from me doing my own research on the above topic, I wanted you to explain for your self the ease of transfers between London airports. You cant seem to go beyond a statement as vague as "But of course you either fly to the next airport or take a train or float to the next airport," and even the respose above is about as useful as yourself.

An example of "useful" information here, even when the information is still pending: In order to transfer from a regular flight to a budget one in Changi when the new terminal is open, you hop onto an internal shuttle bus, a short 5 mins ride. Details about frequency and cost will be made known at a much later date. Could you perhaps compare this form of transfer with whatever option you may have for London?

As you can see, who gives a damn about passenger figures at these airports, and what makes you think we arent aware of it already? Other can certainly get the "big picture" all right....but how about your ability in being salient and to-the-point in your responses?

Well I know definately what your status is on these forums! I repeat again - there was no hijacking whatsoever on these forums - I told you that there are 5 international airports located in and around London. Which ones are dedicated to budget carriers. I then gave you an idea of taking a flight to Gatwick to then transfer within the airport itself to a budget carrier. Common sense would tell prevail to tell you that you could take the train, coach, taxi or lift from a friend or even a connecting flight to any of the other airports. But like I said - I addressed your concerns with the Gatwick flight with in-terminal transfer to a budget carrier such as Easyjet!!!! But the bigger picture is that there are 5 international airports (2 which are irrelevant here really: Luton + City) which means more connections, more carriers be them the bog standard or budget.

Now you asked if you could get to a carrier at Heathrow - I said you could get a flight to Gatwick and get an internal transfer. But you could have wanted to go to Heathrow and want to decide to go to either Gatwick, Stansted, Luton or City for a budget carrier flight - as you weren't concise on this point I had to resort to the bigger picture to get the entire message across of the London air hub - just imagine it as Changi but split up into 5 and enlarged some 5 times :)

@nick: How long does it take from Heathrow to Stansted/Luton by coach, train, taxi??? How much is it??

Haha....try answering Stan's question for one. That was what we are all wanting to know, and which you still refused to answer.

And meanwhile, what makes you think its of any convenience for all travellors having to actually look for flights which terminate at non-Heathrow airports, just to avoid the inconvenience (if it were so) of transfers within London?

And what makes you think that all travellors arent averse to the idea of simply taking any flight from any airline which happens to terminate at that airport? A short budget ride taking no longer then an hour is probably no big deal when it comes to decisions like this, but you are talking about a very long haul flight here across two continents taking over 14 hours to complete. If I happen to be a frequent flyer with SIA or BA or Qantas, do I have much choices? And if I simply refuse to endure the trouble of having to do a transfer with a change of plane, what choices do I have here?

What about schedules and frequency of flights? The only flights to London available now, are via Singapore Airlines (21 times a week, one way), Qantas (14 times), and British Airways (14 times), all being direct flights to Heathrow, giving you exactly 7 flights a day, departing at 0540, 0900, 1240, 2250, 2315, 2320, and 2335 hours Singapore time. Which other non-direct flight involving a change of plane can offer this level of frequency and choices in terms of scheduling?

All these....just to avoid transfering between airports in London? Now if these transfers were indeed convenient, I doubt you will be talking in circles here all these while. Your hesitation is increasingly giving me reason to suspect otherwise. Or can someone else with better foruming ethics come forward and just offer us the information we ask for?

@nick: How long does it take from Heathrow to Stansted/Luton by coach, train, taxi??? How much is it??

I thought I might expand this as some of you might not have been to London and might find it useful if you ever come to London in the near future. Though if your aiming for internal connections to budget carriers - go for flights to London Gatwick. If you want an insane amount of budget carrier desitinations aim for London Stansted. London Luton is far smaller and London City is mainly for very short haul flights and the associated small budget carriers.




London Heathrow Airport (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=510000.3590994&Y=175000.093321241&width=500&height=300&gride=507726.3590994&gridn=176098.093321241&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=1&scale=50000) - London Stansted Airport (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=555000&Y=225000&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=100000&multimap.x=223&multimap.y=235)


Coach
Not as easy as hoping on a train - but can be FAR cheaper than the tube and rail. National Express (http://www.nationalexpress.com/) is my best bet - there are I believe 5 coach stops (t1, t2, t3, t4 + central). But from Heathrow Central Coach Station to Stansted Airport the journey is usually direct and depending on the time of day quite frequent!.........

Time - 1hr 25mins - 1hr 45mins (remember: travelling at rush hour WILL increase journey times)
Cost - £20 (+.99p for insurance and this is single) - £30


Train
This really depends on what mode of transport you take - for example if you take the tube, you will have to go onto the Piccadilly line. Your objective here is to get to Liverpool Street Station which is located in the east (Heathrow being in the west) - but at the heart of the City of London (Swiss RE, etc). You are advised to stay on the deep level lines simply because they are the faster of all tube lines (Piccadilly, Victoria, Central, Jubilee, Bakerloo and Northern lines). Changing at Holborn onto the Central line means that you can then arrive at Liverpool Street (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=533250.000038919&Y=181500.881584059&width=500&height=300&gride=533210.000038919&gridn=181549.881584059&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=GB&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=1&scale=10000) for the Stansted Express.

Now if you have decided to use the more expensive but far more convenient and faster service of the Heathrow Express (http://www.heathrowexpress.com/) which leaves every 15mins from Heathrow Airport. You will expect to arrive non-alighting at London Paddington Station (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=526000&Y=181000&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=10000&upright.x=66&upright.y=7) within 15minutes of leaving Heathrow Airport (from Terminal 4 its 23mins). This gives you connections on to a few lines (Bakerloo, Hammersmith & City, District and Circle). Get onto the Bakerloo and change at Oxford Circus for the Central Line and you should end up at Liverpool Street eventually

Here you board hopefully not in peak hours (thats a hint for most journies - try just before rush hour and after rush hour) on to a Stansted Express (http://www.stanstedexpress.com/) train which calls only at Tottenham Hale (Victoria line connection), Bishops Stortford (my home town :D), Stansted Mountfitchet and then Stansted Airport itself. The journey from Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport is around 40mins and trains leave every 15mins from Liverpool Street. DON'T take the normal passenger trains, because the majority stop at all stations along the route (unless noted express ones) and the track that you take to London Stansted has some 20 stations along its route. Another reason is that not all trains leaving Liverpool Street go to Stansted Airport. Some go off into the far East and you don't want to be on a train bound to either Ipswich, Norwich or Folkestone. Nor do you want to be on a train terminating at: Enfield Town, Hertford East, Chingford, Cambridge or Kings Lynn!!!! All trains you should aim for terminate at Stansted Airport - this map shows some of the stations that feed into Liverpool Street (there are some 200+ that feed into Liverpool Street and its the busiest by passenger volume in the UK so don't board a train unless you know EXACTLY where its going - this route map (http://www.onewestanglia.com/img/wa-route-map.gif) might prove helpful

Note:Crossrail in the near future will see a dedicated high speed rail link which will mean direct connections from all terminals at Heathrow to Liverpool Street - a journey time of some 30mins which would halve the current journey time. So if your visiting after 2010-2013 then Crossrail will be your preferable choice of transport from Heathrow :)


Depending on your chosen route - journey time can be anywhere between 1hr30mins - 2hrs30mins
Depending on your chosen route + time - cost could be anywhere between £30 - £50 (singles or returns included)


Taxi
Unless your super rich I wouldn't bother.....not as bad as prices in Tokyo - but getting close to. I consider myself pretty well off but ALWAYS take the tube + subway. HOWEVER - if your into taxis GET A LICENSED ONE - ie the Licensed London Hackney Cab (http://community.webshots.com/s/image2/8/41/40/42984140oSrazV_fs.jpg) type - if it doesn't look like a balck cab (some come in an assortment of colours and with ads plastered on them) don't get in it. They could be drivers without insurance or people of an unsavoury type. Dial-a-Cab (http://www.dialacab.co.uk) are seen as the industry leaders......but I wouldn't advise using them unless you know the exact route they will take (ALTHOUGH - most black cabbies know "The Knowledge" - they have to know every single road in London and if they don't they aren't licensed - so if in doubt, start asking about "The Knowledge".

Time - 2hrs - 3hrs - really depends on the traffic.....it could be hellish at 9:00, but calm and pleasant at 11:00. Most Cabbies who know the "The Knowledge" will aim to try and get you to your destination as quick as possible and will use back roads to get around traffic jams and the like
Cost - No idea really - could be easily upwards of £100+





[b]London Heathrow Airport (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=510000.3590994&Y=175000.093321241&width=500&height=300&gride=507726.3590994&gridn=176098.093321241&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=1&scale=50000) - London Luton Airport (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=510000.44459698&Y=222500.409765936&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=50000&multimap.x=396&multimap.y=238)


Coach
Just like catching a coach from Heathrow again but to Luton airport.

Time - 1hr 15mins - 1hr 30mins
Cost - £20+ (Same as going to Stansted Airport)


Train
London Kings Cross - Thameslink (http://www.london-luton.co.uk/kiosk/pdf/routemap.pdf), London St Pancras - Midland Mainline (http://www.midlandmainline.com/images/layout/map/stations.gif), Virgin Rail all serve London from Luton Airport. The benefit of using Thameslink is that it directly connects with Gatwick Airport. However travelling from Heathrow Airport provides you with 3 different London rail termini of which to connect with (Euston, Kings Cross and St Pancras. The best option is the Luton Express (aka Thameslink) which goes into Kings Cross (http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=530250&Y=183000&width=500&height=300&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=1&scale=10000).

Just like before from Heathrow you can go either via the Piccadilly line or the Heathrow Express into Paddington.

If you decide to go via the Heathrow Express, changing at Paddington onto the Circle line is preferable in this instance and along to Kings Cross St Pancras (a joint underground station as both rail termini are right next door to each other) is okay, but if you stay on the Piccadilly line (22+ stops though) it will take you directly (and eventually after all the stops :D) to Kings Cross St Pancras. Just remember that Kings Cross has a double barrel train shed roof and St Pancras one giant one with a massive modern extension at the end. Note: In 2008 you will be able to travel direct to Central Paris and Central Brussels in 2hrs and onto the Alps and other destinations all on board the same train :)

Time - 1hr 10mins - 1hr 30mins
Cost - £20 - £40


Taxi
Just like going to Stansted, but cheaper and quicker

Time - 2hrs
Cost - £70-80+



Now huaiwei - for someone who has never been to London, I bet you will find the above very interesting and helpful as it took me damn long time to write!!!!! :yes:




Haha....try answering Stan's question for one. That was what we are all wanting to know, and which you still refused to answer.

And meanwhile, what makes you think its of any convenience for all travellors having to actually look for flights which terminate at non-Heathrow airports, just to avoid the inconvenience (if it were so) of transfers within London?Well like I said again London is a far more larger air hub. Like I mentioned before in the "big picture" that you seem to avoid is that there has to be a balance - a distribution of air traffic around the city periphery. For example I love having an International airport on my doorstep......but I would find it a nuissance having to travel all the way around to Heathrow for ALL flights. I don't know of many cities that concentrate all their operations from one city - Chicago, Tokyo, New York, etc in one airport. Its also practical in that there are "backups" ie if there is a hostage problem in say Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and the others can continue to operate without danger or trouble. Like I said again - a single airport (the figures I mentioned earlier) for London would have to be able to handle passenger traffic of currently nearing 130mppa. If anything bad happened, like a plane crash - the whole airport would have to close and the entire global air hub would be left in trouble. $trillions would be lost to the global economy....now do you see why there has to be a distribution and if Changi ever goes past the 90mppa limit, then I bet a 2nd airport would be on the tables - its one of those "all eggs in one basket scenario" and I hope that makes sense :)




And what makes you think that all travellors arent averse to the idea of simply taking any flight from any airline which happens to terminate at that airport? A short budget ride taking no longer then an hour is probably no big deal when it comes to decisions like this, but you are talking about a very long haul flight here across two continents taking over 14 hours to complete. If I happen to be a frequent flyer with SIA or BA or Qantas, do I have much choices? And if I simply refuse to endure the trouble of having to do a transfer with a change of plane, what choices do I have here?Like I said - its what YOU want and not necessarily what the air carriers want to do. If you want a flight - ask SIA or who else to start offering direct flights to Gatwick. Afterall the airports are there, its the carriers that need to go there and like I said - I'm looking out for your safety in terms of DVT :)



What about schedules and frequency of flights? The only flights to London available now, are via Singapore Airlines (21 times a week, one way), Qantas (14 times), and British Airways (14 times), all being direct flights to Heathrow, giving you exactly 7 flights a day, departing at 0540, 0900, 1240, 2250, 2315, 2320, and 2335 hours Singapore time. Which other non-direct flight involving a change of plane can offer this level of frequency and choices in terms of scheduling?Again this aint the airports problems - but the carriers problems. The airports are literally at breaching point! That what I think you still don't get: the bigger picture - the worlds largest air hub compared to a far smaller airport. If you read back you will actually begin to see this jigsaw puzzle work together and that it actually is all common economical sense :)



All these....just to avoid transfering between airports in London? Now if these transfers were indeed convenient, I doubt you will be talking in circles here all these while. Your hesitation is increasingly giving me reason to suspect otherwise. Or can someone else with better foruming ethics come forward and just offer us the information we ask for?No hesitation whatsoever (I've said clearly that there is a bigger picture all this for such a vague question!) and its the carriers who you should be moaning to - if there was a demand for internal transfers to Europe from Singapore then SIA, BA, etc....would fly direct to Gatwick or where ever you would like to then go to then via budget carrier to Europe. Now if you can't understand carriers wanting to fly here there or everywhere then thats not my problem because they don't have the demand then thats something to write to Temasek & Co :)

Now huaiwei - for someone who has never been to London, I bet you will find the above very interesting and helpful as it took me damn long time to write!!!!! :yes:
Thanks very much, dear, but actually you dont really need to expend so much energy when you could just provide url links to sites like these:

http://www.londontoolkit.com/travel/heathrow_stansted_transfer.htm

Oh, and meanwhile, so how does all that info compare with the ease of taking a 5 min bus ride in Changi, which most likely will be free too? ;)

Come to think of it, since when did this become what seems like a London vs Sg thingy? I suppose it became one when you decided to trust your "London standards" on others as thou it is the ultimate model for aviation transport, and as thou it is applicable everywhere else including here. And because we dont happen to follow your beloved model, you decry the new budget terminal plan.

Big picture eh? ;)

Thanks very much, dear, but actually you dont really need to expend so much energy when you could just provide url links to sites like these:

http://www.londontoolkit.com/travel/heathrow_stansted_transfer.htmWell dear I like to make a personal contribution :)



Oh, and meanwhile, so how does all that info compare with the ease of taking a 5 min bus ride in Changi, which most likely will be free too? ;)Like I said - Changi is one small airport. London is 5 international airports!



Come to think of it, since when did this become what seems like a London vs Sg thingy? I suppose it became one when you decided to trust your "London standards" on others as thou it is the ultimate model for aviation transport, and as thou it is applicable everywhere else including here. And because we dont happen to follow your beloved model, you decry the new budget terminal plan.

Big picture eh? ;)London standards - what on earth are you talking about now! I was stating and reminding you that London is in a completely different tier passenger handling numbers wise!!! If you can't understand the pure figures and sheer capacity then thats your problems.

But getting back to my original point you have to admit its a bit odd to have a terminal totally detatched from the rest of the airport, in other words its as though as if its sinful to use a budget carrier because your forced to use a bus to just get there in the first place. But let us take Gatwick airport (a model for all-carrier integration in the UK :)), it is capable of handling the big boys like BA and Emirates and also the big budget boys like Easyjet and Ryanair within the same terminal. There isn't some sort of segregation form the other carriers and this was what I was trying to get at.....can you now say that Changi's new budget carrier is now not segregated from the other terminals?

Dis-integration is what I see at Changi :)

Yeah sure, if you could declare that both cities are on completely different standards, even in terms of passengers handled, then what do you mean by trying to insist all along that the London makeup of having multiple airports should be implimented here in Singapore? ;)

Even if you want to argue along the lines of passenger numbers handled, do you think Singapore even needs two major airports when one still has more then enough space even with its current size?

Yeah yeah...after finally conceding that there is no way transport options between two airports could beat that WITHIN an airport, you have no other way out then reminding that London has 5 international airports? :laugh:

And finally, if you want to go back to insisting that segregation of terminals is not a wise thing to do (which should have been the focus of this discussion anyway) based on some abstract notion of "elitism," then I just go back to asking you....how much cheaper could Changi charge low-cost airlines when normal airlines use the same facilities, and would obviously scream unfairness if budget carriers get any form of discount?

And hey, you are talking about facilities in one of the world's best airports according to international surverys consistently over almost 3 decades. Different league, arent they, to anything London's airports could offer? :D

The title of the this article is loosely translated as
"Hongkong Airport cracking their brains again as Singapore plans to build a budget terminal"

For those who can't read this, the important parts will be translated later.

http://www.zaobao.com/images/smzaobao.jpg

新闻：财经 2004-07-24

新加坡要建廉价航空客运大楼香港机场又伤脑筋

● 易锐民（香港通讯员报）

　　正面对广州新机场挑战的香港机场，又要为樟宜机场兴建专为廉价航空公司而设的客运大楼计划大费思量。

　　香港机管局主席冯国经表示，会作针对性研究；专家认为，香港无需仿效新加坡；而学者就建议，香港应检讨收费模式，以提高竞争力。

　　冯国经承认，香港机场管理局非常关注樟宜机场该项计划，他希望香港能尽快想出对策。他透露，就国际航空管制的飞航权，香港已与多个地区进行谈判，当中包括中国的航班。他认为，有更多航空公司增设航班，对香港始终有利。

　　他认为，香港机管局已有很多措施吸引航空公司使用服务，“我们做了很多工作，可以帮助不同的航空公司，有些是传统的伙伴，或新的廉价航空公司，都可以在本港的国际场运作。”

　　为了吸引更多亚洲廉价机票航空公司开办更多航线，新加坡政府决定在樟宜国际机场另辟廉价航空客运大楼，预计在2006年投入服务，每年客运处理能力达270万人次。

　　前香港民航处处长乐巩南表示，香港无需仿效新加坡。他说，樟宜机场有关计划对香港机场无直接影响 ， 因为新、港两地的地理位置各有优势， 相信廉价航空公司不会因该新设施而改变原定航线 ，转飞新加坡。

　　他也说，香港若作出仿效，将要涉及庞大投资，而旅客选用廉价航空公司的热潮，就未必持续长时间，因此，香港应观察情况后，再决定采取什么相应措施。

　　但岭南大学公共政策研究中心主任何泺生就认为，不应忽视廉价航空的发展潜力。他说，香港机管局应小心评估市场形势，如有需要可以考虑兴建廉价航空公司的专用客运大楼，但基于公平原则，不可以向廉价航空收取较低费用。他建议，香港机管局应检讨现行的收费模式。

　　廉价航空公司已而成为市场新动力，邻近香港的澳门机场，近期就有航空公司推出票价仅200多港元前往泰国的航班，震动港澳旅游业。廉价机票除了吸引港澳旅客外，中国旅客也纷纷由从前必经的香港，改为由澳门出发往泰国。

广州新机场的挑战

　　澳门国际机场见机不可失，更提供一条龙专车服务，接载中、港旅客由码头往返机场抢客。加上广州白云机场8月落成，香港机场作为中国旅客外游中转站的地位，正备受夹击，岌岌可危。

　　另外，来势凶猛的广州新白云机场，香港业界也相信将会打“价格牌”，争取客、货量，所以业界呼香港机场必须要在收费上作出对策。不过，也有航空公司货运部人士认为，广州机场还需要几年时间才可在效率和服务上跟香港看齐，在这段时间市场会不断增长，增长份额可能已足够令两个机场共享。

　　面对广州新机场的挑战，香港机场已率先出招，机管局较早前已宣布，会给予开办新航线往来香港国际机场的航空公司着陆费回扣。

　　另外，香港机管局证实，由于汕头上空实施航空管制，昨日有10多班由香港飞往上海的航班延误1小时至两小时才起飞。据悉，解放军昨午继续在厦门举行军事演习，令中国及国际航线多班航机受延误。

hehe..my Chinese isnt so good, but the 2nd part of your article also mentions the competition HK faces from Guangzhou airport?

I would like the full English translation though :)

Translation for the first part:

- While facing new competition from Guangzhou, Hongkong airport has to deal with another issue: Singapore plans to build a budget terminal.

- The chairman of the Hongkong Airport authority Mr Feng Guo Jing say they will study this carefully. Aviation experts say there's no need for Hongkong to emulate Singapore's method. They should look into the cost structure of the airport instead.

- Mr Feng admits that the Hongkong Airport authority are watching Changi's budget terminal plan closely. He hope the Airport authority will think of something quickly. He believes attracting more airlines to Hongkong is ultimately beneficial to hongkong.

-Mr Feng say Hongkong Airport already have a lot of incentives for new airlines. He said" we did a lot of work to attract full service carrier and LCC
to operate in Hongkong airport."

-Ex Hongkong Civil aviation chief Le Gong Nan also feel that Hongkong need not emulate Singapore's plan. He believe that Singapore's plan to build the budget terminal has no direct impact in Hongkong as they each have their geographical advantage. If Hongkong want to build such a terminal, the initial investment is huge, plus the trend of budget travelling might not be long enough to justify such investment. Hence he thinks Hongkong should observe for a while before reacting.

-But Mr He Le Sheng from Lingnan university thinks that they shouldn't overlook the potential of budget travelling. He suggest that ultimately the cost structure is what Hongkong airport should be looking at.

- Budget travel is on the rise. In neigbouring Macau, there are budget flights to Bangkok costing as little as HKD 200. This has not only attracted travellers from Hongkong and Macau, but has also attracted some China tourist, who previously used Hongkong as a hub for travel to Bangkok. Now, they've turn to Macau instead.

This is the second part of the article

- Macau Airport see this as an excellent opportunity. It starts to provide direct coach service for HK and china travellers from the pier to snare this budget travel pie.

- Then there is Guangzhou spanking new airport. Hongkong aviation industry believes Guangzhou will have lot of offers and incentives to jump start the new airport and compete with Hk. They also believe that Guangzhou airport needs a few years to catch up with Hongkong Airport efficiency and service. In the meanwhile, the pie is growing fast enough, hence there will be enough for both.

- Hk airport offers landing discounts for airlines starting new routes. This is one of the ways to fend off competition from Guangzhou.

Note some distinct characteristics for the Hong Kong market :

- There are too many airports in the Pearl River Delta. Zhuhai has flopped, and Macau is underused.

- Hence regional airports must adapt, such as cargo-only or find new niches, such as attracting LCC to survive. Macau has courted LCCs.

- However, they realize that in order to have enough passengers, they must get the people to and from Hong Kong somehow.

- AirAsia is trying to get a fast ferry service between Macau and HK.

- There are already lots of LCCs operating into HK. These airlines are masked as full-service airlines (China Eastern, Orient Thai, China Airlines, etc.)

- Budget aviation will not take off in China in the foreseeable future, hence the market is strictly SE Asian, hence it is not justifiable to build a budget terminal as in Singapore's case.

- Inevitably, Guangzhou will compete with HK, but they are not a key market of passengers using HKIA to fly internationally.

- Guangzhou itself is a big city, so it can sustain its own international routes, and foreign carriers are not marketing fly into HK/GZ and bus to the other (ie. Lufthansa).

- Given the economic circumstances and regulatory barriers in China, budget aviation will not take off in the Greater China region any time soon, hence a major investment for additional airport facilities is not justified.

This article appeared long before the final decision was announced, and seems like some folks here need to take another look at it:

Posted 12/18/2003 9:38 AM

http://images.usatoday.com/travel/_masthead/_images/marketplace_smartertrip3.gif

Changi's budget terminal to help budget airlines take off in Asia

SINGAPORE (AFP) (USATODAY.com) — Singapore's plan to build a no-frills budget terminal at its state-of-the-art Changi airport makes smart business sense and will boost Asia's fledgling budget airline industry, analysts said Thursday.

Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong announced on Wednesday a budget terminal at Changi could be operating within 18 months as he vowed the city-state would not fall behind in the race for a share of the lucrative low-cost market.

"Singapore will spare no effort to ensure that we remain the premier air hub in this region," he said. "We will continue to build on our fundamentals to ensure Changi Airport remains the preferred hub of choice for full-service carriers. But we also have to be nimble and adopt a complete mindset change to ensure that we can cater to the development and growth of low-cost carriers in this region."

Analysts and industry players said Thursday the budget terminal plan for Changi makes good business sense. "It's a very practical response to some fairly substantial pressure," Peter Harbison, managing director of the Sydney-based Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, told AFP. "It's a recognition there are going to be a number of airlines who are going to serve the low end of the market. Changi airport is always a world benchmark airport and it has taken the initiative to serve the low-end market."

The director of Bangkok-based Pacific Asia Travel Association, Sim Kok Chwee, also applauded the move but said the deadline for building the terminal should be brought forward. "I am just wondering with the 18 months lead time we are seeing, how does that facilitate the entry of ValuAir and Tiger Airways," Sim said. "If it is a shoebox facility with no fancy stuff, it is a very simple process ... surely it is possible to take less time than that."

ValuAir and Tiger Airways are two Singapore-based low-cost airlines that are due to begin flying next year. Singapore Airlines, which is government owned, has set up Tiger Airways with three partners, and intends to fly routes within a four-hour distance from the city-state.

Malaysia's AirAsia, whose efforts to establish a Kuala Lumpur-Singapore had previously been frustrated because Singaporean authorities had refused to give it cheaper operating fees at Changi, cautiously welcomed the new plan.

"It's a step in the right direction ... it's an acknowledgement there should be separate (premium and budget) facilities," AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes told AFP. Fernandes said AirAsia would still prefer to operate out of Singapore's secondary Seletar airport if it was upgraded, an option that authorities here appear to have dismissed by publicly flagging the Changi alternative.

The travel and tourism industry is vital to the economy of Singapore, a resource-scarce nation of just over four million people. Commercial activity generated by Changi airport accounts for 4.3% of the city-state's $90 billioneconomy.

Media reports have estimated the budget terminal could serve five million passengers annually. The government has said the budget terminal fees would be 20 to 30% lower than at Changi's regular facilities.

Yeah sure, if you could declare that both cities are on completely different standards, even in terms of passengers handled, then what do you mean by trying to insist all along that the London makeup of having multiple airports should be implimented here in Singapore? ;)No I'm not - Singapore serves its purpose as a vital South-east Asian hub for connecting flights into Asia and Oceania. Now if Singapore was in London's position - would you risk having all your eggs in the same basket and risk having by 2030 some 300-250mppa going through a single airport.....sounds far to risky doesn't it? That's why if Singapore really saw incredible air passenger growth then of course it would fracture and another airport would undoubtedly be built elsewhere on the island.....however lack of land and the smallness of the island means that probably wouldn't be needed and Changi will continue to develop as it is. But if Singapore handled 120mppa+ would you have all those people flying through one airport?



Even if you want to argue along the lines of passenger numbers handled, do you think Singapore even needs two major airports when one still has more then enough space even with its current size?No I'm not arguing otherwise - Singapore Changi has enough scope to go to at least 65mppa (ie current Heathrow size). The problem I'm trying to get across is that the catchment area and service has to be spread around as evenly as possible - having airports concentrated in one area will see growth distortingly follow suit and this creates many social problems (as Heathrow is seeing), thats why I mentioned the growth at Stansted as evening the weighing scales to distribute the burden :)



Yeah yeah...after finally conceding that there is no way transport options between two airports could beat that WITHIN an airport, you have no other way out then reminding that London has 5 international airports? :laugh:There is no need for direct airport - airport connections! No city on the planet has done so and it would be a waste of money to do so in London or anywhere else on the planet! You can make public transport connections easier, eg Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton Express into the city core......but a dedicated line to and from the individual airports - such routes would cost £bn's and the through traffic meaningless as the current flights are what people want.

So like I keep saying - 5 international airports, both catering for different areas of London and surrounding area. But what you won't come to grips with is internal and external transfers from long distance carriers to budget carriers and as I mentioned - Changi lags behind the likes of Gatwick in trying to act as a cohesive unit (ie all connected - all united, no need to take a bus to another terminal, simply because yoru budget carrier flight could be the neighbouring gate!!!) and this is something that you have to admit :yes:



And finally, if you want to go back to insisting that segregation of terminals is not a wise thing to do (which should have been the focus of this discussion anyway) based on some abstract notion of "elitism," then I just go back to asking you....how much cheaper could Changi charge low-cost airlines when normal airlines use the same facilities, and would obviously scream unfairness if budget carriers get any form of discount?Fly to Gatwick and find out for yourself how the likes of Emirates and BA work with Ryanair and Easyjet. You'll find that the big long haul carriers can no longer afford to keep their short haul business's running with the budget carriers about.....so instead of working against the cheaper rivals, you work with them to carry on the transfers - a kind of symbiotic relationship whereby both can't operate in the other's territory....but both need each other to boost their global and local catchment :)

If you actually remember - I was the first to raise the focus that you wanted to address so importantly before the side-tracking began (post #7) :)



And hey, you are talking about facilities in one of the world's best airports according to international surverys consistently over almost 3 decades. Different league, arent they, to anything London's airports could offer? :DWell there was me trying to describe the bigger picture that you couldn't fathom out and now your turning it into a Changi Vs London Airports thread. Double standards now eh? But if you want to put it like that - Changi is in a different league: its far less important than either Heathrow and Gatwick. And with the constant growth at Stansted, Changi will be eclipsed once again within 5 years I suspect.

I could go on about how Terminal 5 will be lovely, or I could go on about Pier 9 at Gatwick or the new terminals at Stansted that will be be built....but you know - this isn't a Changi Vs Everyone else thread and I wouldn't mind if you could keep it that way please :)

@Nick: Thanks for your long info about the airport connections.:)


So like I keep saying - 5 international airports, both catering for different areas of London and surrounding area. But what you won't come to grips with is internal and external transfers from long distance carriers to budget carriers and as I mentioned - Changi lags behind the likes of Gatwick in trying to act as a cohesive unit (ie all connected - all united, no need to take a bus to another terminal, simply because yoru budget carrier flight could be the neighbouring gate!!!) and this is something that you have to admit :yes:


For your info, LCC like Thai AirAsia, Lion Air, Oriental Thai, Valuair are operating in the present Changi terminal with all the full service carrier. So what makes you think "Changi lags behind the likes of Gatwick in trying to act as a cohesive unit"?? :)

Secondly, the authorities at changi leave the decision of using the budget terminal to the budget carriers. So if they choose the present terminal, the authorities will not chase them away. ;)

To put simply, Changi is merely offering more choices for LCC. Disintegration?? I dun think so.....more like diversifying.:)

babystan03 - No problem :)

Well I aint a regular user of Changi so I can't keep up to date on all its actions, but from what I was getting from other posts was that Changi didn't serve the budget demand - now that its settled, its even then and everything is fine and dandy. Although I can't see why the new terminal will be "seperate" - just sounds like incovenience and it would be far better to incorporate the new terminal with say a possible t4. That way the long haul carriers like Qantas, SIA, etc can benefit from having a larger threshold via the budget carriers which serve short-haul. It just sounds better economic sense and by the sounds of it - Changi should either continue expansions with everything together rather than dislocating parts! I don't want to have to come into Changi come Xmas (hopefully) to have to take a bus ride and not a travelator to the next gate (but of course it won't be built by then - but ya get the eventual idea as I'm somewhere in the S'gpre area every year :))

No hesitation whatsoever (I've said clearly that there is a bigger picture all this for such a vague question!) and its the carriers who you should be moaning to - if there was a demand for internal transfers to Europe from Singapore then SIA, BA, etc....would fly direct to Gatwick or where ever you would like to then go to then via budget carrier to Europe. Now if you can't understand carriers wanting to fly here there or everywhere then thats not my problem because they don't have the demand then thats something to write to Temasek & Co :)
Its kinda odd that you heap the blame on relatively difficult connectivity between London airports (compared to that at Changi) squarely onto airlines. Heathrow did not come to be the most lucrative landing venue for long haul flights by chance. It has and continues to be the main and most attractive hub for airlines because of unrivalled global connectivity there. Prior to the massive explosion of LCCs, other airports in London are more like secondary venues for the unfortunate folks who fail to gain landing slots in Heathrow.

Why should SIA and other airlines suddenly start shifting base to other London airports, just because of the later's inefficiencies? It is a huge gamble to give up costly slots and move, because it is practically a choice between providing connectivity to full-service passengers or LCC passengers, since few, if any, LCCs fly into Heathrow at all, and contrary to what you argue, other London airports are very much dominated by LCCs and the availability of full-service long-haul flights pale by any measure.

Since you talk as thou you know better then Temasek Holdings, perhaps you could explain to us why isnt SIA shifting any operations outside of Heathrow? And meanwhile, why not call up BA and Qantas as well? And whileyou are at it, why not check out with all these Asian airlines as to why they dont fly outside Heathrow?

Asian airlines to Heathrow Airport:
Air China
Air India
All Nippon Airways
Asiana Airlines
Bangladesh Biman
Cathay Pacific Airways
China Eastern Airlines
Cyprus Airways
EL AL Israel Airlines
Emirates
Etihad Airways
Eva Air
Gulf Air
Iran Air
Japan Airlines
Korean Air
Kuwait Airlines
Malaysian Airlines
Middle East Airlines
Onur Air
Pakistan International Airlines
Qatar Airways
Royal Brunei Airlines
Royal Jordanian
Saudi Arabian Airlines
Singapore Airlines
Sri Lankan Airlines
Syrian Arab Airlines
Thai Airways International
Turkish Airlines
Turkmenistan/Akhal
Uzberkistan Airlines
Yemenia Yemen Airways

Asian airlines to Gatwick Airport:
Air Kibris
Arkia Israeli Airlines
Azerbaijan Airlines
EL AL Israeli Airlines
Emirates
Eurocypria
Israir Airlines
Kibrish Turkish
Onur Air
Phuket Air
Turkish Airlines

Asian airlines to Stansted Airport:
Cyprus Airways
EL AL Israeli Airlines
Onur Air
Turkish Airlines

Asian airlines to Luton Airport:
-- NIL --

Asian airlines to London City Airport:
-- NIL --

Airlines which fly to more then one London airport are highlighted in Red.

Now, see the clear pattern there? Which are the airlines flying into non-Heathrow airports? Except for Phuket Air, all of them were from the Middle East, which is obviously pretty close to London. So for all those countless passengers flying into London on that huge range of airlines from Asia, I suppose all of them have to start flocking for that small selection of non-Heathrow airlines (many of which are tiny regionals) just to connect to budget flights? And good luck to anyone wishing to use Luton or London City airports!

What do I have to do next? Show you which London airports are served by key Asian cities with direct flights?

No I'm not - Singapore serves its purpose as a vital South-east Asian hub for connecting flights into Asia and Oceania. Now if Singapore was in London's position - would you risk having all your eggs in the same basket and risk having by 2030 some 300-250mppa going through a single airport.....sounds far to risky doesn't it? That's why if Singapore really saw incredible air passenger growth then of course it would fracture and another airport would undoubtedly be built elsewhere on the island.....however lack of land and the smallness of the island means that probably wouldn't be needed and Changi will continue to develop as it is. But if Singapore handled 120mppa+ would you have all those people flying through one airport?
The thing here is that you seem to assume airports with a huge passenger volume would automatically spread out their handling capacitis over multiple airports due to "risks"......with your plane crashes and all. Yeah, probably makes sense to the layman, but unfortunately, most cities have mutiple airports more because of existing airports being unable to physically expand then perceived risks.

Just check out Tokyo's predicament, which has practically all their international traffic (except for a few Taiwanese ones, and rumours has it that it was due to politics then anything else) going through Narita. The city would love to expand, but local opposition is strong. Building a new airport elsewhere within the Tokyo metropolitan area isnt quite an option either (instead, a new airport in central Japan has to be built).

That is just one example. How about countless examples all over the world? Size and connectivity of airports matters much more then spreading risks in this regard. Milllions of passengers demand for ease of connections between flights within one airport, something which happens countless times on any day at any time....in comparison, how often do you have an airport being shut down due to any reason?

I suppose you do not know much about Changi's plans, but the current setup is being expanded to 64 million passeners by 2008. The present grounds, if including the budget terminal plans, can handle up to 73 million comfortably. And while we speak, land has already been reclaimed right beside the airport, doubling the airport area by 2. This gives it more then enough space for an additional 2 runways, plus at least 2 terminals or more, if not practically dublicating the existing facilities by two if you wish. Assuming technological, engineering and architectural advances over the next decades, it might be able to handle far more in the same amount of land. 73 million x 2 is alreadymore then 120 million. I can safely bet that this amount of land can easily handle over 150 million....all in one airport. (need a map?)

Yes, it has been planned this way, and it isnt my imagination. You could keep arguing about the merits of having multiple airports which I wont deny there indeed are several, but again, I question why you compare the two cities as thou they were on the same tier at all?

I actually tried not to concentrate on Luton and City simply because of their irrelevance - if you have not noted this then please do go over it and if you want to carry this topic on at a tangent than do so. Unless you didn't notice - but Asian air traffic is not the highest priority air traffic into London - ever heard of Europe and North America.............ah you go now - all makes sense :)

The thing here is that you seem to assume airports with a huge passenger volume would automatically spread out their handling capacitis over multiple airports due to "risks"......with your plane crashes and all. Yeah, probably makes sense to the layman, but unfortunately, most cities have mutiple airports more because of existing airports being unable to physically expand then perceived risks.Yes that is another reason, but you forget that me as a "layman" (don't worry I won't lower myself to your standards :yes: ) also said that there is a far larger catchment. Please do read what I say - Stansted serves primarily the easy (ie like myself), Luton the "north", Gatwick the south-east and south and Heathrow the centre and west and all areas. For someone who has never been to London is funny cause you can't really comment on this situation! Their distribution covers a far wider area than that of Changi does and this means the air traffic is distributed more evenly in what is already the worlds most crowded portion of sky! I do agree with the physical restraints statement but I tried not to delve to much into this as well its going off on a tangent and away from the bigger picture :)




Just check out Tokyo's predicament, which has practically all their international traffic (except for a few Taiwanese ones, and rumours has it that it was due to politics then anything else) going through Narita. The city would love to expand, but local opposition is strong. Building a new airport elsewhere within the Tokyo metropolitan area isnt quite an option either (instead, a new airport in central Japan has to be built).And? It still has Haneda (which is far more accessible) - shifting the load of the burden of the total air capacity. Same with New York: JFK, Newark and LaGuardia, and the likes of Hartsfield, O'Hare (+ Midway), CDG, Schnipol and Frankfurt are around the Heathrow mark and thus not really in need of re-distribution. But like I said - there is redistribution of air traffic. Not every city in the world is confined to the land restrictions of the islands of Singapore is the answer :)



That is just one example. How about countless examples all over the world? Size and connectivity of airports matters much more then spreading risks in this regard. Milllions of passengers demand for ease of connections between flights within one airport, something which happens countless times on any day at any time....in comparison, how often do you have an airport being shut down due to any reason?No need to keep going on about the safety issue (which actually for London's perspective is probably very important considering the likes of the IRA have been an ever constant threat.....), I've highlighted other points, but hey - London continues to lead the world as the largest air hub on the planet - it must be doing something good because no other global air hub is close to matching it - yes geography plays its part, but the distribution is done by BAA (they wouldn't be making much money if they weren't playing the game correctly :laugh: ) and it works - you might not like it because you can't get a direct Singapore flight to a terminal which has a budget carriers - but hey, if there was the demand - it could all be there.....but its not - economic limits dictate this and unless you can somehow manage to gather a few thousand other constant travellors wanting the same service then hell some carrier would fill the gap....but remember its the majority not the minority that dictates gate allocations at airports and where the carriers wish to fly to :)

Airports can be affected by various reasons - be it protests, terrorist threats (remember the tanks at Heathrow last year - the airport wasn't closed, but it would have had a possible attack been imminent. In such a scenario Changi would have to close, while Gatwick and Stansted could continue at inflated levels to cope with the demand - see it COULD happen - better to be ready than sorry :)), industrial action, an air disaster....ALL possible and ALL could happen be it Heathrow or Changi!!!!



I suppose you do not know much about Changi's plans, but the current setup is being expanded to 64 million passeners by 2008. The present grounds, if including the budget terminal plans, can handle up to 73 million comfortably. And while we speak, land has already been reclaimed right beside the airport, doubling the airport area by 2. This gives it more then enough space for an additional 2 runways, plus at least 2 terminals or more, if not practically dublicating the existing facilities by two if you wish. Assuming technological, engineering and architectural advances over the next decades, it might be able to handle far more in the same amount of land. 73 million x 2 is alreadymore then 120 million. I can safely bet that this amount of land can easily handle over 150 million....all in one airport. (need a map?)Well I aint exactly living in Singapore and I guess the same could be said of you in regards to London - but hey at least I've been to Changi to comment which is a step ahead.....but hey thats not to say that London's airports have reached their limits - like I said otherwise, Stansted is targetted for 129mppa, Heathrow around 123mppa, Gatwick I believe between 90-110mppa, Luton around 30mppa and City I believe is targetted for a possible 5-7mppa (but I'll get the white paper consultation out if I can find it - it gives it all in great detail if you would like to read it :)) by 2030!!!



Yes, it has been planned this way, and it isnt my imagination. You could keep arguing about the merits of having multiple airports which I wont deny there indeed are several, but again, I question why you compare the two cities as thou they were on the same tier at all?I wasn't - it was the connecting between the others that led down this route! But it would make more sense to keep the current situation and repeat it, rather than segregate :yes:

May I also point out that I don't have anything against Singapore - I couldn't have wanted a better place to have been born and to have lived there for three years of my life. :)

Keeping with nick's theme, remember that Heathrow is heavily guarded by existing airlines. New carriers will have tremendous difficulty securing landing slots and gate spaces as the other airlines won't budge. In fact, some airlines even have to pay off others to get in. Cathay Pacific encountered such problems when they were trying to get to get their transatlantic (New York - London) route scheduled. Some airlines just don't bother and use other airports in the London area instead. For the budget carriers, they'd rather go far away to save costs, and passengers looking for a cheap deal wouldn't mind travelling farther to fly a cheap flight either. But then, London's 3 key airports are easily accessible by transit anyway.

Notice Heathrow's airlines are all the traditional big-shots. Newcomers such as easyJet and Emirates had to settle elsewhere because the big-shots wouldn't release their coveted and expensive slots.

Older cities such as London and New York have evolved with several airports as traffic grew over the years. That's a product of history. New and emerging cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Seoul have decided that one airport is enough and make it huge instead. But then, traffic into these airports is far lighter compared to London or New York, so one big airport is adequate. As nick mentioned, a single airport handling well over 100 million passengers a year seems quite risky. Even without consideration of the terrorism threat, imagine air traffic control trying to keep all the planes flying in and out safely without causing significant delays from so much traffic!

Unfortunately, the one-airport centralization theme in many Asian cities is a major risk in case of terrorism or accident. Some cities counteract that by cooperating with neighboring airports when something big shuts the other down.

Interesting.

Here's news from Dubai:

A second airport is to be built in Dubai and will be operational at the end of 2006, civil aviation chief Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum said.

The new airport will be located near the free zone of Jebel Ali, 50 kilometers out of town, and will initially handle only freight before opening up to chartered flights, he told Monday's Al-Khaleej daily.

To be built at a cost of up to 1 billion dirhams (about $272 million), the new airport should become operational at the end of 2006, with a capacity to initially handle 250,000 to 300,000 tons of freight per year, said Maktoum, who is also the chairman of Dubai's Emirates airline.

Dubai International Airport, which is being expanded at a cost of around $4 billion, handled 10.41 million passengers in the first half of this year, an increase of 27 percent on the same period in 2003.

Volume of freight in the same period soared by 21.7 percent to 535,212 tons. Dubai, a tourist and commercial hub, expects to handle annual traffic of about 30 million passengers by 2010 and more than 60 million by 2020.

Link to thread for the new Jebel Ali International Airport: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=117652

The UAE's first budget airline based in Sharjah, is Air Arabia (I think that's what its called).. and I'm sure they will fly from this new airport. Later on, Jebel Ali airport will be expanded and maybe budget airlines and cargo will move to the existing Dubai airport.

May I also point out that I don't have anything against Singapore - I couldn't have wanted a better place to have been born and to have lived there for three years of my life. :)
Haha.....oh dont worry. Its only the selected few who think just because there is a long-winded debate on something, or there is a disagreement, there has to be some sort of angst or chip on the sholdier or anti-this anti-that sentiments to explain it! :D

Anyway, I have quite a backlog of posts here to reply to. Gimme a moment!

No I'm not arguing otherwise - Singapore Changi has enough scope to go to at least 65mppa (ie current Heathrow size). The problem I'm trying to get across is that the catchment area and service has to be spread around as evenly as possible - having airports concentrated in one area will see growth distortingly follow suit and this creates many social problems (as Heathrow is seeing), thats why I mentioned the growth at Stansted as evening the weighing scales to distribute the burden :)
Yes, but remember the context of the cities we are talking about here. For one, Singapore is too compact to experience a severe level of growth distortment to a point whereby it is clearly visible. Yes, growth certainly will not be even, but in Singapore's regard, it has very little to do with the placement of the airport. (well for one thing, we dont have people living right next to the airport (there is a approximately 1km buffer zone parrallel to the runways keeping out residential areas, while the approches are only open for recreational uses), something we often see in other truly congested cities!)

Why? This moves on to my second point: because the entire country of Singapore is under the hands of one governmental planning body, the Urban Redevelopment Authority, which coordinates with all various relevant organisations as well as the private sector in its planning and implementation duties. Singapore excellent transportational infrastructure negates the issue of having to live near or away from the airport. Development of public housing, where almost 90% of the population lives in, is geographically spread out to balance out development, and simple demand and supply influences the prices of flats, which helps balance out demand to some extent too. Three of our largest towns, Tampines, Jurong West and Woodlands, are located in the East, West and North respectively, with the city centre in the south. Private housing plots are sold on demand on according to market conditions by the government body to private developers, and they tend to be geographically spread out too. Traditionally, the East Coast area is a haven for private housing dwellers, but so is the Tanglin-Bukit Timah districts in the central-west, known for some of the most expansive housing here.

Finally, the existance of other important institutions and infrastructure here has always led to some form of balance. While the airport is sited on the extreme East, the largest Industrail estate here, Jurong, the only location where most heavy industries are found, is located in the extreme West. While the east has been traditionally more favoured by residents for housing, two of our 3 universities are located in the west (the 3rd one to be located downtown). The port facilities are located in the South, North and West. The long term plan is for all the port facilities to be congregated into just two mega terminals, compared to 6 in existance now, and both will be in the west.

Its all pretty clear here (the airport is that large blob of grey in the east, including the expanded reclaimation area for the ultimate size of the airport):

http://www.ura.gov.sg/conceptplan2001/images/bigmap.gif

Seriously from the map above, tell me where else could you site another airport? Its not like we have any choices, terrorism, accidents or otherwise!

There is no need for direct airport - airport connections! No city on the planet has done so and it would be a waste of money to do so in London or anywhere else on the planet! You can make public transport connections easier, eg Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton Express into the city core......but a dedicated line to and from the individual airports - such routes would cost £bn's and the through traffic meaningless as the current flights are what people want.
Well probably, and in fact, I was not even demanding you to start building metro lines connecting the airports (thou that cant be called a bad idea especially looking at current situations? :D ), but I am asking you to compare the very likely scenario of folks from the Far East having to do a transfer, as compared to say a British travellor wishing to visit a Southeast Asian resort, and using Singapore as a transit point.

Perhaps the number of transit passengers have not warranted better connections between airports yet. Perhaps it has not reached a level to force airlines to shift some or even all operations to the hubs of LCCs. Perhaps it is the very inconvenience of making those transfers (just look at the cost and time needed for those transfers you posted....you might end up spending more and taking a longer time on those transfers on land then on that LCC flight!) which puts people off, forcing them to just transfer to another full-service flight for that last leg, since code-sharing and other incentives are so common nowadays?

Who knows...perhaps what Changi is doing meets with lots of sceptism, because it was something no other airport in Asia (or perhaps even the world) has done? I myself wont stand up and declare that it is definitely the way to go, and that it is a sound decisions in every aspect of the word, inclusing social segregation which some of you correctly pointed out. But what I do applaude, is the apparant willingness to take the gamble, and commit the money and expertise to provide such a terminal, such that budget airlines have a CHOICE in which facility they prefer to use. If the terminal fails to take off, fine. Close it down and chunk them all back into the main terminals if need be....a more feasible option then closing down an entire underused airport!

Yes, but remember the context of the cities we are talking about here. For one, Singapore is too compact to experience a severe level of growth distortment to a point whereby it is clearly visible. Yes, growth certainly will not be even, but in Singapore's regard, it has very little to do with the placement of the airport. (well for one thing, we dont have people living right next to the airport (there is a approximately 1km buffer zone parrallel to the runways keeping out residential areas, while the approches are only open for recreational uses), something we often see in other truly congested cities!)

Why? This moves on to my second point: because the entire country of Singapore is under the hands of one governmental planning body, the Urban Redevelopment Authority, which coordinates with all various relevant organisations as well as the private sector in its planning and implementation duties. Singapore excellent transportational infrastructure negates the issue of having to live near or away from the airport. Development of public housing, where almost 90% of the population lives in, is geographically spread out to balance out development, and simple demand and supply influences the prices of flats, which helps balance out demand to some extent too. Three of our largest towns, Tampines, Jurong West and Woodlands, are located in the East, West and North respectively, with the city centre in the south. Private housing plots are sold on demand on according to market conditions by the government body to private developers, and they tend to be geographically spread out too. Traditionally, the East Coast area is a haven for private housing dwellers, but so is the Tanglin-Bukit Timah districts in the central-west, known for some of the most expansive housing here.

Finally, the existance of other important institutions and infrastructure here has always led to some form of balance. While the airport is sited on the extreme East, the largest Industrail estate here, Jurong, the only location where most heavy industries are found, is located in the extreme West. While the east has been traditionally more favoured by residents for housing, two of our 3 universities are located in the west (the 3rd one to be located downtown). The port facilities are located in the South, North and West. The long term plan is for all the port facilities to be congregated into just two mega terminals, compared to 6 in existance now, and both will be in the west.

Its all pretty clear here (the airport is that large blob of grey in the east, including the expanded reclaimation area for the ultimate size of the airport):

http://www.ura.gov.sg/conceptplan2001/images/bigmap.gif

Seriously from the map above, tell me where else could you site another airport? Its not like we have any choices, terrorism, accidents or otherwise!I agree with all this...........but it can't be applied to other cities which have far larger thresholds and carry far more people - we can't simply have a massive congregation of air traffic in one area (if that was the case then the super-Heathhrow would currently be handling some 130mppa and by 2030 it would have to cope with some 400mppa - as you can see these immense numbers have to be distributed to stop chaos ensuring (could you imagine an airport handling 400mppa - 16x Changi's current size?). We also have co-ordination, but considering the London and surrounding area is far larger and more populated it becomes more troublesome and masterplanning is something used to try and integrate the county, eg the M11 corridor's critical component is the Stasted Expansion and unfortunately my town is slap bang in the middle (they want to grow the population by around 200% :laugh: )!




Well probably, and in fact, I was not even demanding you to start building metro lines connecting the airports (thou that cant be called a bad idea especially looking at current situations? ), but I am asking you to compare the very likely scenario of folks from the Far East having to do a transfer, as compared to say a British travellor wishing to visit a Southeast Asian resort, and using Singapore as a transit point.Yeah but like I said it would be uneconomical - where exactly would these lines go - would they do a complete diagonal through London from say Heathrow to Stansted and who would use it? I bet that fewer than 5,000 people a day connect to the other airports - is it worth while construction lines worth most likely in the £10's of bns for only a handful of people. Rather the plan should be to concentrate growth at the airports and try to keep the balance right. But on another note - why doesn't Singapore make a dedicated line to Kuala Lumpur International Airport - no point is there! The demand and finances just don't add up!

But factor this is - construction of Crossrail has started (ventilation tunnels under Moorgate and Liverpool Street have already been constructed ) and some of it will be operational by as early as 2010 and the other branches by 2013. You could take a high speed train from Heathrow to Liverpool Street in around 25mins. There are also plans (although unofficial) for a high speed rail link down into Liverpool Street from Stansted Airport which would make a journey some 25mins - the entire journey would require only one connection at Liverpool Street and I think thats pretty efficient if you ask me and the way around transport problems. Here is a map of Crossrail - as you can see Heathrow has its own spur in the west and Liverpool Street in the centre core. The most important part is the tunnel under Central London which will have 3-400m long platforms to cope with an expected 600,000 daily usage!!! If you've been to Paris and on the RER then you'll know what Crossrail is. Its also another thru-city rail network such as Thameslink and Silverlink and if you notice also on the map - you see Crossrail 2 which is the brother of crosrail but in a north-south axis :)

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/80256B090053AF4C/Files/routemaps03/$FILE/crossrail+line+1+connections+map+2004.pdf

Well this is a vocal minority - like I said, if they wanted to fly to London they will have to change at connecting airports. Afterall its the people that have to organise themselves around the carriers and airports, just as much as the airports and carriers have to rotate around the people. Its this balance that has meant London has continued to hold the largest air hub title :)




Perhaps the number of transit passengers have not warranted better connections between airports yet. Perhaps it has not reached a level to force airlines to shift some or even all operations to the hubs of LCCs. Perhaps it is the very inconvenience of making those transfers (just look at the cost and time needed for those transfers you posted....you might end up spending more and taking a longer time on those transfers on land then on that LCC flight!) which puts people off, forcing them to just transfer to another full-service flight for that last leg, since code-sharing and other incentives are so common nowadays?Possibly.......but the likes of BAA would have seen this and done their research into it and obviously yes more budget carriers are needed at Heathrow (thats what T6 and the 3rd runway are for).....but the load and passeneger numbers don't warrant it. These people aren't stupid you know!




Who knows...perhaps what Changi is doing meets with lots of sceptism, because it was something no other airport in Asia (or perhaps even the world) has done? I myself wont stand up and declare that it is definitely the way to go, and that it is a sound decisions in every aspect of the word, inclusing social segregation which some of you correctly pointed out. But what I do applaude, is the apparant willingness to take the gamble, and commit the money and expertise to provide such a terminal, such that budget airlines have a CHOICE in which facility they prefer to use. If the terminal fails to take off, fine. Close it down and chunk them all back into the main terminals if need be....a more feasible option then closing down an entire underused airport!Doing what? Segregating the budget terminal from the rest of the airport.....while before the current option at Changi seemed more convenient and practical? Sounds like a step back to me for Changi! If there is growth - make the terminals expandable (eg Stansted is designed in a modular fashion and its already been expanded two times - but the airport retains the same context, just with more space) and plough them in together - a union is what is needed and it will benefit the long haul carriers as well :) I don't get also what your getting at my the "closing down an entire underused airport" - I'm not sure if this was meant to be a slight go at Stansted as its majority of carriers are budget carriers or something else :? But for all the foresight of Singapore in previous years.....doesn't this new terminal sound dubious and rather odd - you don't plan to take a gamble unless you know you can make it. The SMRT is an example - it aint a gamble - cost efficiency plans and other lengthy surveys have made sure that Singapore gets to use it as much as possible and that it facilitates growth of the economy....maybe the URA has some new whiz kid in charge who believes he could make a name for himself...in my opinion it won't work - you'll create a gap and if budget carriers have a choice.....they won't budge unless forced into doing so

I dunno what was happening - but when I was at work today a few jumbos flew directly overhead (I don't work in London, but where I work aint under the holding pattern or landing or take-off rotations)- they might have been diverted from Heathrow and Gatwick because there is industrial action by BA....but I couldn't quite make out the livery and they were coming from the Heathrow area. So I dread to imagine what would have happened has Stansted not been around :)

Huge military transport planes (not to mention screaching fighter jets) fly directly over my block occasionally on their way towards landing at Paya Lebar Airbase.....once a civilian airport and the predecesor of Changi.

I dread to imagine what would have happened should they keep both airports around for civlian use! :D

I actually tried not to concentrate on Luton and City simply because of their irrelevance - if you have not noted this then please do go over it and if you want to carry this topic on at a tangent than do so. Unless you didn't notice - but Asian air traffic is not the highest priority air traffic into London - ever heard of Europe and North America.............ah you go now - all makes sense :)
Oh yes of coz. I could have posted the list for ALL the airlines in ALL the airports there, right? Well of coz, but didnt I start this off asking you about connection possiblities for LONG HAUL passengers, which in this regard, are mostly from Asia?

Even then, you could post all the data you wish, but in the end, you will still arrive at the same conclusion: Non-Heathrow airports are still very much dominated by LLCs. You have figures to dispute this?

Yes that is another reason, but you forget that me as a "layman" (don't worry I won't lower myself to your standards :yes: ) also said that there is a far larger catchment. Please do read what I say - Stansted serves primarily the easy (ie like myself), Luton the "north", Gatwick the south-east and south and Heathrow the centre and west and all areas. For someone who has never been to London is funny cause you can't really comment on this situation! Their distribution covers a far wider area than that of Changi does and this means the air traffic is distributed more evenly in what is already the worlds most crowded portion of sky! I do agree with the physical restraints statement but I tried not to delve to much into this as well its going off on a tangent and away from the bigger picture :)
Honestly, I couldnt care less about what you consider as "off tangent" or the "bigger picture." I respond according to your rants and whines. If your whines are misplaced, then of coz the responses will follow suit! :D

Yes yes....so those airports serve a larger gatchment area. Yes yes...they serve different parts of London. Makes me wonder what is wrong with London in terms of its transportational options for it to have to plop an airport in every corner of the city then! Many other similarly huge cities (be it in terms of area or population) have been able to get by with relatively less airports. So whats wrong with London?

I dont know why you refuse to reason with me that those multiple airports were often the result of existing airports being unable to expand (not just in terms of technology wise, but also because of local opposition) as a possibly bigger reason then catchment sizes and serving different suburbs of the city. Oh so you agree, yes, but you sidestepped further discussions in it by calling it "going off-tangent??"

Goodness gracious, but as far as you are concerned, any theory you disagree with equates to going off tangent or something? Now you know why I would rather ignore your definitions of it! :D

And? It still has Haneda (which is far more accessible) - shifting the load of the burden of the total air capacity. Same with New York: JFK, Newark and LaGuardia, and the likes of Hartsfield, O'Hare (+ Midway), CDG, Schnipol and Frankfurt are around the Heathrow mark and thus not really in need of re-distribution. But like I said - there is redistribution of air traffic. Not every city in the world is confined to the land restrictions of the islands of Singapore is the answer :)

No need to keep going on about the safety issue (which actually for London's perspective is probably very important considering the likes of the IRA have been an ever constant threat.....), I've highlighted other points, but hey - London continues to lead the world as the largest air hub on the planet - it must be doing something good because no other global air hub is close to matching it - yes geography plays its part, but the distribution is done by BAA (they wouldn't be making much money if they weren't playing the game correctly :laugh: ) and it works - you might not like it because you can't get a direct Singapore flight to a terminal which has a budget carriers - but hey, if there was the demand - it could all be there.....but its not - economic limits dictate this and unless you can somehow manage to gather a few thousand other constant travellors wanting the same service then hell some carrier would fill the gap....but remember its the majority not the minority that dictates gate allocations at airports and where the carriers wish to fly to :)

Airports can be affected by various reasons - be it protests, terrorist threats (remember the tanks at Heathrow last year - the airport wasn't closed, but it would have had a possible attack been imminent. In such a scenario Changi would have to close, while Gatwick and Stansted could continue at inflated levels to cope with the demand - see it COULD happen - better to be ready than sorry :)), industrial action, an air disaster....ALL possible and ALL could happen be it Heathrow or Changi!!!!
Haha....oh yeah....and did anyone remind you that Singapore has more than one International airport too, with or without land restrictions? ;)

Clearly, it is not just an issue of listing out airports in some of those cities (how much international traffic does LaGuardia handle compared to JFK? Midway compared to O'Hare?) I mentioned Tokyo as an example, because the growth limitations imposed by local land owners is one of the best cases for consideration here.

I may have not harped on the security issue, but as I said before, I respond according to what you post. You are the one who elevated the security issue, and even as you tell me to loosen up on this aspect, you hyped it up once again at the end of your above quoted paragraph? Well sure....strikes and all can happen at any airport (even if that means discounting the political climate here :laugh:), but AGAIN I ask you....which is more of a pressing issue to airport and city planners: Catering for ease of transfers for millions of passengers on a daily basis, or catering to the possiblities of any factor which may lead to the closure of airports?

Risk assessment is a very disirable, yes, but how many cities in the world have the luxury in terms of space, money, effort, and time to put in multiple airports as a contingency plan? Also, I suppose you are assuming single-airports have no contingency plans in place?

If it erks you to this level, why not write to the Straits Times and tell them to build a second airport here in case of an airport strike? ;) Talking to me alone isnt going to have much of an impact in your quests for global perfection (on London levels), you know? :D

Well I aint exactly living in Singapore and I guess the same could be said of you in regards to London - but hey at least I've been to Changi to comment which is a step ahead.....but hey thats not to say that London's airports have reached their limits - like I said otherwise, Stansted is targetted for 129mppa, Heathrow around 123mppa, Gatwick I believe between 90-110mppa, Luton around 30mppa and City I believe is targetted for a possible 5-7mppa (but I'll get the white paper consultation out if I can find it - it gives it all in great detail if you would like to read it :)) by 2030!!!
Yeah, so what is all these supposed to to so with what I posted? Do I sound like I am worried if London's multiple airports cannot handle 10,000 million passengers a year? You demanded to know how Changi could handle 120 million passengers in one airport, and you predicted that Singapore will be forced to build a second airport should the passenger levels increase substaintially....say beyond 120 million. I posted the facts to show you otherwise. Case closed!

Oh yes of coz. I could have posted the list for ALL the airlines in ALL the airports there, right? Well of coz, but didnt I start this off asking you about connection possiblities for LONG HAUL passengers, which in this regard, are mostly from Asia?Yes - but you can take flights from elsewhere to get to Gatwick :)



Even then, you could post all the data you wish, but in the end, you will still arrive at the same conclusion: Non-Heathrow airports are still very much dominated by LLCs. You have figures to dispute this?I wasn't debating otherwise! But I wouldn't say its concentrated to Heathrow. Gatwick handles more international traffic through the big carriers than it does through the budget carriers. But I already stated that Luton and Stansted are dominated by the budget carriers :)



Honestly, I couldnt care less about what you consider as "off tangent" or the "bigger picture." I respond according to your rants and whines. If your whines are misplaced, then of coz the responses will follow suit!Well that is a shame now, but I'm not ranting or whining - if I was, I would have flown to Singapore to talk to you personally over this matter :laugh:



Yes yes....so those airports serve a larger gatchment area. Yes yes...they serve different parts of London. Makes me wonder what is wrong with London in terms of its transportational options for it to have to plop an airport in every corner of the city then! Many other similarly huge cities (be it in terms of area or population) have been able to get by with relatively less airports. So whats wrong with London?Right let me give you a little exercise - give me a list of the other city air hubs of the world, their total mppa and the individual mppa of each airport and then compare it to the mppa of Heathrow: 65mppa; Gatwick: 31mppa; Stansted: 20mppa; Luton: 7mppa and City 1mppa......I'll think you'll find that most airports aren't even larger than Heathrow for a start (bar Hartsfield or O'Hare which shares with Midway anyway) and that the associated air hubs are far lower :yes:




I dont know why you refuse to reason with me that those multiple airports were often the result of existing airports being unable to expand (not just in terms of technology wise, but also because of local opposition) as a possibly bigger reason then catchment sizes and serving different suburbs of the city. Oh so you agree, yes, but you sidestepped further discussions in it by calling it "going off-tangent??No - I'm not refusing - I'm also stating that there are other problems abound that have to be taken into account. The simple restricted model of Singapore can not be transplanted to London and the SE of England! Its far more complicated :)



Goodness gracious, but as far as you are concerned, any theory you disagree with equates to going off tangent or something? Now you know why I would rather ignore your definitions of it!It gets far harder to describe the picture to someone who has never been to London and to someone who seems to think that the entire London air hub (and the worlds largest by quite a margin) could somehow be molded into the Changi model is something I would love to hear from you :)



Haha....oh yeah....and did anyone remind you that Singapore has more than one International airport too, with or without land restrictions?Well good for Singapore - considering I'm not a resident anymore its a tad hard to know all the details, kinda like you being unable to comprehend the London air hub :)



Clearly, it is not just an issue of listing out airports in some of those cities (how much international traffic does LaGuardia handle compared to JFK? Midway compared to O'Hare?) I mentioned Tokyo as an example, because the growth limitations imposed by local land owners is one of the best cases for consideration here.First of all you have to remember that unlike in Europe.....the option of HSR is not available in the US and the distance between the major cores far more distant.....this means that domestic travel between the US airports is FAR higher than in say Europe. This is why London is the worlds largest international airport, because the likes of Hartsfield and O'Hare handle far more domestic (east-west) travel. I can't remember the figures - but someone said that only some 15mppa is the figure for O'Hare in terms of international traffic. In other words - Haneda is comparable to O'Hare :laugh: odd would you not say?



I may have not harped on the security issue, but as I said before, I respond according to what you post. You are the one who elevated the security issue, and even as you tell me to loosen up on this aspect, you hyped it up once again at the end of your above quoted paragraph? Well sure....strikes and all can happen at any airport (even if that means discounting the political climate here :laugh, but AGAIN I ask you....which is more of a pressing issue to airport and city planners: Catering for ease of transfers for millions of passengers on a daily basis, or catering to the possiblities of any factor which may lead to the closure of airports?Look - take BAA - the worlds largest airport authority - they didn't become the worlds largest for no reason. They had to balance growth, political, geographical and social problems at the airports and surrounding areas couple that with what the carriers and what the demand is!!!! It all makes sense and if it wasn't working then Stansted wouldn't be one of the worlds fastest growing airports (19.5% per annum), or that Heathrow or Gatwick are also continuing to grow at faster rates than say O'Hare or Hartsfield.

As I see it - its not the problem of BAA but yourself as an individual not being able to get what you want and we are afterall living in reality and you can't get everything that you want in life :)



Risk assessment is a very disirable, yes, but how many cities in the world have the luxury in terms of space, money, effort, and time to put in multiple airports as a contingency plan? Also, I suppose you are assuming single-airports have no contingency plans in place?Never made such assessments on single-airports but risk assessment is what London has to do - considering the possible problems of variable fundamentalist terrorist groups and of course the IRA - it has to be taken into account :)



If it erks you to this level, why not write to the Straits Times and tell them to build a second airport here in case of an airport strike? Talking to me alone isnt going to have much of an impact in your quests for global perfection (on London levels), you know?I don't think the Straits Times would get the job done, a better suggestion might have been the CAAS. But you fail to see the difference and scope of size: London handles 120-130mppa; Singapore some 25mppa - some 5x busier. A central airport of 130mppa if attacked, or damaged by an accident, or immobolised because of a strike. Having the ability to shift the air traffic to another international airport that could take the strain with the same facilities (ie comparable runway, immigration, transport, etc) for a short span of time - a backup and London and the world needs it - if the London air hub were to be incapacitated then the financial markets would probably go into disarray, the whole international flight system would be in trouble! you wouldn't be able to get from Singapore to London, let alone Heathrow and thus not able to connect to any of the budget carriers.

But have you not considered something as simple as taking a direct flight to anywhere in continental Europe? Unless you didn't know - you can take a flight to say Paris, other than flying to London and then connecting to a budget carrier to Paris - it might make more sense and temporally more viable :)



Yeah, so what is all these supposed to to so with what I posted? Do I sound like I am worried if London's multiple airports cannot handle 10,000 million passengers a year? You demanded to know how Changi could handle 120 million passengers in one airport, and you predicted that Singapore will be forced to build a second airport should the passenger levels increase substaintially....say beyond 120 million. I posted the facts to show you otherwise. Case closed!Now your being childish 10,000mppa is stretching it a bit ;) I actually never said that Changi would have to have a sister airport - a second one WOULD be helpful incase of an emergency but like I posted before - Stansted and Heathrow are set to handle some 120mppa+ by 2030, Gatwick between 90-110mppa and growth at the other two airports. So its not like I'm saying that Changi should build a 2nd airport (I suppose another airport could be built in the Industrial East even though of course land is at a premium!)...but that a backup international airport wouldn't be a bad thing for Singapore. Afterall I do want to make sure that the country keeps powering along :yes:

If a second international airport is not feasible because of land or economic constraints, consider working with neighboring countries / cities to set up an emergency preparedness plan in case something unfortunate does happen. Obviously weather-related risks won't be mitigated by such a plan, but for example, if an airplane crashes and the airport's capacity is decimated by search and recovery efforts, aircraft can be smoothly diverted to neighboring airports.

For an air hub as important as London, if anything bad happens at Heathrow, flights mut be rerouted somewhere, and their multiple international airports can be a good back-up. People can still reach the city centre because both Gatwick or Stansted have direct public transit links, so the disruption will be minimal. Similarly, if anything bad happens at Changi, flights can be rerouted elsewhere, such as KLIA or even Jakarta. However, getting to the final intended destination will be a bit more challenging. It's the same logic. That's the big picture.

The skies over London are definitely very crowded and take-off slots at Heathrow's runways are very competitive. My flight has been delayed by 30min for the plane to get the next take-off slot for a passenger who was late 5 min.

IMO the Changi model works perfectly for Singapore. Its all about offering quick connections within a single airport and since traffic at Changi can cope with any boom in budget travel, then it makes perfect sense for having budget carriers hub at Changi rather than at some other airport - remember that the domestic market is small but the transit traffic is huge.

Little is known of contingency plans but I believe there are plans in place to deal with a terrorist threat. There was a 'revenge' plot by Bashir to crash a plane into the control tower before! :eek: Now, the defence ministry is in the process of acquiring the necessary technology to equip Singapore carriers with anti-missile devices. (similar to Israeli systems I think)

JULY 26, 2004

Why not use current airport terminals for budget airlines?

THE Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) should reconsider the idea of building a budget air terminal at a cost of some $35 million and see if a better alternative can be found.

This is especially so as passengers will still be expected to pay airport tax of $18 at the budget terminal where they have to walk to the aircraft in all weather conditions - a mere $3 difference compared to the $21 airport tax they pay at terminals 1 and 2!

Looking at the huge construction of Terminal 3, one wonders, when it is completed in a few years (when the new budget terminal will also be completed), what will happen to the excess capacity in terminals 1 and 2.

Currently, Terminal 2 is used mainly by Singapore Airlines (SIA), which is its biggest user. Hence, when SIA moves to the new Terminal 3, Terminal 2 will immediately have more than 50 per cent idle empty gates.

This will be coupled with Terminal 1, which currently has some excess capacity. During offpeak hours, between 10am and 5pm, one can see how quiet Terminal 1 and even Terminal 2 are.

Has the CAAS considered using part of Terminal 1 exclusively for budget carriers - by blocking off a finger pier, for example, or part of a remote bay? Modifications to check-in and separate access to this budget pier can be made easily in a very short time.

This will save a lot in building costs, manpower, logistics, ground handling equipment and security.

Even with the projected increase in arrivals over next few years, Changi Airport's three international terminals will still be under-used and have plenty of room to cope with expected demand.

This will be compounded with the introduction of new ultra long-range aircraft which can serve European and Australasian routes direct and bypass Singapore. In fact, Changi may not even get its projected increase in aircraft landings, except for some budget carriers.

The CAAS should look for better ways to use existing facilities, rather than build new facilities as the easiest option.

The difference in airport tax is only $3 for each budget passenger. For such a small amount, why build a new terminal at a cost of $35 million when it is devoid of most amenities for passengers and will be practically empty?

WILLIAM WEE LIANG THIAN

JULY 31, 2004

Why need for budget-airline terminal

I REFER to Mr William Wee Liang Thian's letter, 'Why not use current airport terminals for budget airlines?' (ST, July 26).

The business strategy of low-cost carriers (LCCs) is to charge very low fares to capture market share as well as to create a new market or demand. To charge very low fares and yet remain profitable, the LCCs must operate as cheaply as possible. They do so by doing away with many of the services or 'frills' provided by regular airlines, such as meals on board or baggage handling for connecting flights.

LCCs seek to maximise use of their aircraft by flying the aircraft more hours each day. Hence the insistence that airports must turn around their aircraft within a short period of time.

LCCs would also have to reduce their ground costs, like not using aerobridges or mini-mising bussing of passengers.

The terminal at Changi Airport is to be built because one of the LCCs, Tiger Airways, has said it needs a purpose-built low-cost terminal to help it keep operating costs down. Tiger Airways has also given a written commitment to use the terminal.

The terminal is therefore designed primarily for low-frills operations - without aerobridges or need for airlines to do bussing and does not have the complicated baggage-handling system found in Terminal 1 (T1) and Terminal 2 (T2) for handling transfer baggage.

The single-storey terminal, which is significantly smaller than T1 or T2, will eliminate the need for escalators, lifts and travelators.

If LCCs were to operate from T1 or T2 they may not be able to fully exploit the potential of their no-frills model. They would then not be able to translate this into ultra-low fares.

A separate terminal for LCCs is not a new concept and is practised by airports in Europe and the United States.

LCCs coming to Singapore can choose between using T1, T2 and the low-cost terminal, depending on their business model. Some LCCs, for instance, may feel their business model can absorb the higher cost of T1 or T2 because their passengers would be willing to pay a bit more for better service.

In developing the low-cost terminal for LCCs we have not forgotten about the passengers using this terminal. The passenger-service charge will also be lower than that in T1 or T2. While we have not determined exactly how much lower, we are, however, conscious of the need to keep the cost low for the travelling public and airlines operating at the LCC terminal.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore is prepared to respond to the changing environment in the aviation industry in order to grow Singapore's status as an aviation hub.

YIP SIEW JOO (MS)
Public Relations Manager
Civil Aviation Authorityof Singapore

^
Actually those extra spaces can be put to good use....like expanding the retail and entertainment area, more lounges, more exciting stuff for the duty free area etc.......:yes:

You refering to extra spaces in the existing terminals? They are indeed reconfiguring the interiors of the existing terminals right (other then changing the roof)?

You refering to extra spaces in the existing terminals? They are indeed reconfiguring the interiors of the existing terminals right (other then changing the roof)?

Yes......there will be 3400 sq metre of extra space in T2 once the renovation is done......:yes:

I think when T3 is opened, they might allocate some airlines to use T2 or something.....A lot of airlines use T1........ :)

Yeah but like I said it would be uneconomical - where exactly would these lines go - would they do a complete diagonal through London from say Heathrow to Stansted and who would use it? I bet that fewer than 5,000 people a day connect to the other airports - is it worth while construction lines worth most likely in the £10's of bns for only a handful of people. Rather the plan should be to concentrate growth at the airports and try to keep the balance right. But on another note - why doesn't Singapore make a dedicated line to Kuala Lumpur International Airport - no point is there! The demand and finances just don't add up!
I haven actually gotten down to reading your posts, but now that I had, this paragraph really made me chuckle! :laugh:

If Singapore's Changi wants to build a dedicated rail line to KLIA, the capital city of another country, then heck, am I suppose to ask you why you dont build a similar dedicated rail line from Heathrow to CDG!

You see, I am not demanding that you build a rail line just for supposedly low traffic between airports. In the first place, all these airports dosent seem to be built with the intention of operating as one huge entity, something more far-sighted airport planners would have done.

Now your being childish 10,000mppa is stretching it a bit ;) I actually never said that Changi would have to have a sister airport - a second one WOULD be helpful incase of an emergency but like I posted before - Stansted and Heathrow are set to handle some 120mppa+ by 2030, Gatwick between 90-110mppa and growth at the other two airports. So its not like I'm saying that Changi should build a 2nd airport (I suppose another airport could be built in the Industrial East even though of course land is at a premium!)...but that a backup international airport wouldn't be a bad thing for Singapore. Afterall I do want to make sure that the country keeps powering along :yes:
The main industrial area is in the west, not in the east. :doh:

Anyway, you are drawing quite a fine line there. You dont demand for a second airport, but you think it will be helpful. Well, fine. Even if we were to take it either way, I suppose you must be assuming there is no cross-border emergency arrangements which allows for planes to land practically at any airport capable of allowing the plane to land. I suppose every city with only one main international airport is doomed?

Anyway, the closest international airport to Changi, other then Seletar, is not KLIA. Its Senai Airport. Have you ever heard of it?

Anyway, the closest international airport to Changi, other then Seletar, is not KLIA. Its Senai Airport. Have you ever heard of it?


yea.......everyone here is harping on the fact that in case of emergency - flights should be directed to KLIA which is like 45mins away while Senai International Airport is just a mere 5 mins away. :lol: .......obviously someone's not doing enuf homework here :D :D :D

I haven actually gotten down to reading your posts, but now that I had, this paragraph really made me chuckle! :laugh:

If Singapore's Changi wants to build a dedicated rail line to KLIA, the capital city of another country, then heck, am I suppose to ask you why you dont build a similar dedicated rail line from Heathrow to CDG!

You see, I am not demanding that you build a rail line just for supposedly low traffic between airports. In the first place, all these airports dosent seem to be built with the intention of operating as one huge entity, something more far-sighted airport planners would have done.Finally - a month to respond to my posts was pushing it - I never even knew you had posted until I popped into the other thread :laugh:

Ironically a semi-dedicated line isn't that far off from reality - Crossrail will connect Heathrow to Stratford International, where you can then be whisked on a HSR train to Paris Gare de Nord and then a connecting HSR train to CDG - three changes, and with the possibility of express services - stops at some 10-20 stations - not a direct line, but considering you would be transversing 2 world cities, an extensive tunnel and lots of countryside - thats not too bad :)

But like I said - farsighted planners would not have thought of budget airliners or the fact of air transport at all taking off. Hell why was this new budget terminal at Changi not thought up a long time ago.....not long sightedness there and unless you want to plan to concentrate 130mppa now or 400mppa into one airport by 2030 is just plain crazy. Maybe its because Changi is smaller than 2 of London's airports (soon to be smaller than Stansted at current growth rates!!) as it is and that its harder to comprehend just how big the air hub is. Singapore being an island without a metro or larger national catchment is something you seem to neglect to remember :)


The main industrial area is in the west, not in the east.

Anyway, you are drawing quite a fine line there. You dont demand for a second airport, but you think it will be helpful. Well, fine. Even if we were to take it either way, I suppose you must be assuming there is no cross-border emergency arrangements which allows for planes to land practically at any airport capable of allowing the plane to land. I suppose every city with only one main international airport is doomed?

Anyway, the closest international airport to Changi, other then Seletar, is not KLIA. Its Senai Airport. Have you ever heard of it?A slight typo - nothing to go crazy about! Next, you'll probably try and find out some more typo errors as you seem to be unable to point out any truely important faults :)

I only suggest as much as you suggest for a concentrated godzilla airport that would as you suggest have to concentrate all flights into one airport - ie for 2030 it would have to have a capacity of 400mppa :laugh: - could you seriously imagine an airport like that!!!! But by the way, what long term vision is it, to rely on your neighbouring countries to help you out with aviation problems. Even if your best friends today, it doesn't mean you could be best friends tomorrow. I presume you have done your national service and you probably know that Singapore is avertly cautious to its neighbours? I find it short sightedness to consider relying on your neighbours to help you out - is Singapore paying handsomely to make sure that if a problem occurs that there are no objections??

I also never suggested that every city which has only one international airport is doomed. It will prove problematic in the future, as airport transport continues to grow and demands on the current airport continue - that is long term thinking :)

Nope - but hey I'm not a local resident of the area and if I knew the answer to everything I would be god :yes:

I guess its comparable as you failing to understand that London is a tad larger; in area, population and mppa, so it goes both ways. Funny though that a certain individual comes along to aid you who stubbornly believes in the case of SUV's on average being economical and safer though :)

A slight typo - nothing to go crazy about! Next, you'll probably try and find out some more typo errors as you seem to be unable to point out any truely important faults :)

Funny though that a certain individual comes along to aid you who stubbornly believes in the case of SUV's on average being economical and safer though :)


Firstly, this SUV thingy is OVER and I do not wish to argue with you on this again.

Secondly I am not here to aid Huaiwei in his respond to you but it is indeed a FACT that Senai Intl Airport is a mere 5 mins away from Changi. I just need to backed him up in case you guys denied such fact as I knew cause I am a Malaysian and most foreigners have no clue the whereabouts of Malaysian airports are. If you read carefully, there's more than one person saying KLIA is the 'backup airport' for Changi failing to realised that there is a nearer airport. So don't be so vain as I am not directing that at you.

Thirdly, I DID NOT mention that on the AVERAGE it is more economical and safer. What I said is that not ALL are as bad as what people think. You kept on twisting my words all these while and when I do not retaliate it doesn't mean I readily to admit to your accusations. This is the last straw and I had enough of it.

And lastly, your non-admittance to whatever you said wrongly irked many in this forum. Just admit that you're wrong and everything would be fine. Many times you keep on harping on your dsylexic nature and typo errors but the fact is that you're very wrong in many occasion as in this case a truly opposite - east and west. Is it so hard to admit that you might have slipped a lil and have always tot it was the west all this while? :D

Hmm.....with Thai Airasia, Valuair, Tiger Airways, Jetstar Asia(starting in December according to the news) and Nok Air(news of it starting a flight to Singapore soon), it seems like the building of a budget terminal is rather timely and appropriate......:yes:

I just don't get why it would prove to be problematic for an airport to handle 130mppa. If the people at Changi know that traffic is likely to hit this figure in the future, they would have definitely planned ahead for it... so why should there be a problem or the need to split the traffic up into 2 different airports?

And the likelihood of traffic at Changi reaching 130mppa in the near future without warning is very unlikely and 400mppa is plain crazy... First of all, we don't have domestic flights so its even harder for traffic to hit those figures as compared to those which do. And we have several major airports in neighbouring countries to compete with Changi for passengers...so its even harder for Changi to attain that figure...

Changi was built in the 1980s. If we built a budget terminal then NO ONE WOULD USE IT! There were so budget airlines then, and the budget airline concept was unknown to Asia at that time... we decided to build it now because we anticipated that in the future budget airline traffic would grow at a fast rate...The airline industry in the UK and in Asia are at different phases of their growth process...while budget airlines are folding up in Europe, budget airlines are just beginning to grow in Asia...and so far it is only occuring in the ASEAN region rather than in the whole of Asia...look at the potential...so by building a budget terminal now just when the budget airline industry is taking off is already as forward planning a move as possible already...

The UK and Singapore are so different...no point arguing.......

Well, the last line says it all. ;)

There is simply no comparison indeed, something I have been repeating for practically 6 pages. Judding another airport's decisions based solely on one's analysis of the situation in a home city is kinda odd isnt it?

Well some people NEVER learn.......... :D

:lol: I find it even more ludicrous for him to suggest that you came here to aid me as thou it was premeditated! :rofl:

This story was printed from TODAYonline

Thai AirAsia plans to use Changi's low-cost terminal

Weekend • September 11, 2004

Budget carrier Thai AirAsia said on Friday that it would use the new terminal for low cost carriers (LCC) at Changi Airport, scheduled to begin operations in early 2006.

The low-cost terminal (LCT) is estimated to lower operational costs by 20 per cent.

Thai AirAsia, a joint venture between Malaysia's AirAsia and Bangkok-based Shin Corp, flies twice daily to Changi Airport's Terminal 1 and plans a third daily flight from Oct 31.

However, AirAsia group chief executive officer Tony Fernandes maintained that it is a mistake to build the terminal in the first place.

Speaking during a stopover here yesterday, he said: "Time will tell that Singapore realises that it made a mistake building a low-cost terminal because you're limited by size and runway capacity."

In July, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore announced that it would build a $45-million single-storey LCT to handle an initial capacity of 2.7 million passengers a year, with scope for expansion. The terminal will initially have six parking bays and will share two existing runways used by Terminals 1 and 2.

Mr Fernandes thinks that Changi Airport's "runway capacity problems" will make it hard for low-cost airlines to achieve anything less than 40-minute turnaround times.

Meanwhile, AirAsia has made little progress in obtaining an air operator certificate (AOC) to fly between Singapore and Malaysia.

"We've had no response (from authorities) ... If (Qantas affiliate) Jetstar that wasn't even conceived when we submitted our application is now talking about getting their AOC … it's pretty clear we're not wanted here." — Tay Tsen-Waye

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

This story was printed from TODAYonline

Thai AirAsia plans to use Changi's low-cost terminal

Weekend • September 11, 2004

Budget carrier Thai AirAsia said on Friday that it would use the new terminal for low cost carriers (LCC) at Changi Airport, scheduled to begin operations in early 2006.

The low-cost terminal (LCT) is estimated to lower operational costs by 20 per cent.

Thai AirAsia, a joint venture between Malaysia's AirAsia and Bangkok-based Shin Corp, flies twice daily to Changi Airport's Terminal 1 and plans a third daily flight from Oct 31.

However, AirAsia group chief executive officer Tony Fernandes maintained that it is a mistake to build the terminal in the first place.

Speaking during a stopover here yesterday, he said: "Time will tell that Singapore realises that it made a mistake building a low-cost terminal because you're limited by size and runway capacity."

In July, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore announced that it would build a $45-million single-storey LCT to handle an initial capacity of 2.7 million passengers a year, with scope for expansion. The terminal will initially have six parking bays and will share two existing runways used by Terminals 1 and 2.

Mr Fernandes thinks that Changi Airport's "runway capacity problems" will make it hard for low-cost airlines to achieve anything less than 40-minute turnaround times.

Meanwhile, AirAsia has made little progress in obtaining an air operator certificate (AOC) to fly between Singapore and Malaysia.

"We've had no response (from authorities) ... If (Qantas affiliate) Jetstar that wasn't even conceived when we submitted our application is now talking about getting their AOC … it's pretty clear we're not wanted here." — Tay Tsen-Waye

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
Szehoong....see what I told you about this guy called Fernandes? ;)

He just wants use Seletar airport! Maybe he should consider contributing the several millions needed to upgrade that airport and we might see things moving in his favour? :D

I find it really contradicting when he says he's using the terminal yet believes that it will not work......... :nuts::lol:

Something is really wrong with him arr!!! Same like in Malaysia... he persuaded the govt to reopen the Subang Airport (LTASAAS) as a hub for budget terminal and reject the proposal to build a budget terminal in KLIA!

Oh what joy - replies for me :laugh:



szehoong - Why would I deny that an airport is not nearer to Singapore than any others - KLIA came off to the top of my head!

The majority of SUV's on average are uneconomical both in the amount of roadspace they consume but in the fuel efficiency, not to mention the hazard posed to drivers and pedestrians alike as they are not only more deadly when involved in an accident than say a saloon, but also visual obstructions to the road, similar to HGV's, etc.... I thus think what you seemed to miss was, was that I was referring to averages of which there is little dispute over :)

Actually just reading over what I posted.......

"I suppose another airport could be built in the Industrial East"

All I did was get west mixed up with east in relation to the 2001 Concept Plan Map. Cause obviously a 2nd airport in the industrial east wouldn't make sense would it, what with Changi being there already. A mere typo thus :)



ignoramus - Oh no, London will by 2030 have 3 airports above 100mppa. Gatwick: 110mppa; Heathrow: 125mppa, Stansted: 130mppa (approx if current trends continue). The 400mppa figure is for the combined total London air hub for around 2030. My point is, is that having such a large airport to be closed down due an unforseeable acts would not do Changi or Singapore any good and in today's climate you can't be too sure that your neighbours will be there for you to help back you up. huaiwei couldn't understand why Singapore having two major international airports for the long term future is not a feasable study, but then thought why London can't have one single airport (which would at current figures be around 130mppa).

My only problem is - why have this budget terminal seperated away from the rest of the other terminals? It just sounds like alienation and short sightedness when other airports around the world, eg London Gatwick manage to merge budget carriers and long haul carriers within the terminals in a cohesive structure. I also recognise that budget travel is new to Asia....but why alienate the terminal from the rest of the terminal superstructure :?

I wouldn't say that budget carriers are "folding up" in Europe. Some won't survive simply because the market is too crowded....but Ryanair and Easyjet are quite possibly the world's fastest growing airliners and the big ones of Europe that will survive and continue to prosper. Also expect consolidation among the smaller players as the market becomes tougher


Easyjet Passenger Growth
http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL85/949935/2682391/58210471.jpg


Ryanair Passenger Growth
http://www.ryanair.com/investor/paxchart.gif


Rolling 12 month passenger totals to August 2004:
EasyJet = 23,879,509
Ryanair = 25,452,041

Percentage increase in passengers since August 2003:
EasyJet = 19%
Ryanair = 20%

Load factor (ie percentage bums on seats) in August 2004:
EasyJet = 84.4%
Ryanair = 92%

Graphs and above figures sourced by Monkey

I think you were looking for the London "metro" rather than the UK as that would make more sense. Note also that Easyjet and Ryanair are both based out of London Stansted



There is simply no comparison indeed, something I have been repeating for practically 6 pages. Judding another airport's decisions based solely on one's analysis of the situation in a home city is kinda odd isnt it?How perculiar - so have I for the last few pages :laugh: And like I have said before - I've lived in Singapore for 3 years as well as being born there! Compare that to London, where I have lived for only one year and currently do not reside there :laugh:



I guess also some people never learn :laugh:

Something is really wrong with him arr!!! Same like in Malaysia... he persuaded the govt to reopen the Subang Airport (LTASAAS) as a hub for budget terminal and reject the proposal to build a budget terminal in KLIA!

Haha....no wonder he did the same thing in Singapore.....:lol:

nick-taylor: 2 international airports is always better than one in terms of being better able to cope with emergencies as with what you said...like having 2 dollars is better than having one dollar, i agree...
But, it simply does not make good planning sense to build 2 airports in the case of Singapore... airports just take up too much space... i can't imagine living in a Singapore where whether to the east or to the west of the island you will arrive at an airport (imagine the pollution, air and noise), and so much land is taken up not only for the airport development and also for the buffer zones in between...

Thus, since we can't build a backup airport, we might as well maintain full security at the current one...why build a backup if you can maintain high levels of security at the current one, sure you may argue that security measures are not foolproof, but neither is having another international airport...this is already the most economical and sensible practical way of dealing with the issue already...

Correct me if I am wrong I really am not sure but I think London can't put all its traffic at one airport because Heathrow was built way long ago and had already been expanded several times...thus resulting in space constraints around the area? Heathrow has residential areas nearby right...

Changi instead can do so firstly because it is forced to, there is no space for another airport, and also because it was built recently and has such there is still much more room to expand...cause the nearest residences are very far away...and it is expanding in the direction of the sea...

What about Incheon International? All international traffic is bundled up there, and they have the land for another airport, so why did they not have another one? Isn't that worse than being in Singapore's situation? where they have the land and yet they only have one airport...unlike Singapore...

London being larger, can afford to have another international airport as well as maintaining high levels of security at its current one, as it has the space...meaning it has a better preparedness of sorts against any emergencies...Singapore just can't...I am sure there will be a public outcry against any plans to build another airport...

Again, I emphasize that London is so different from Singapore, London has the land, it can build can many backups for any facility, we don't...blame it on our luck on having only a small island...not for our bad judgement...

The discussion is getting pretty tense here, everyone relax...everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how different they are just as mine is...it is not meant to offend anyone, just rebut me if you think otherwise...just treat it as viewing things from a different perspective but you don't have to admit that its right...this is only a discussion...just give a ''OH, THATS a different way to look at things...'' is sufficient...

The discussion is getting pretty tense here, everyone relax...everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how different they are just as mine is...it is not meant to offend anyone, just rebut me if you think otherwise...just treat it as viewing things from a different perspective but you don't have to admit that its right...this is only a discussion...just give a ''OH, THATS a different way to look at things...'' is sufficient...

Tense?? Haha.....actually I think it's just a "normal" situation in this forum....:lol:

Tense as in I think people are getting pissed off? haha...maybe not... just in case...after all this discussion has been dragging on for quite some time now...more or less about the same thing...

Tense as in I think people are getting pissed off? haha...maybe not... just in case...after all this discussion has been dragging on for quite some time now...more or less about the same thing...

When I was new to this forum, I thought so too(about ppl getting pissed off)......now it's just feel like a normal thing.....:lol:

ya...since this always occurs in forums, this is really nothing strange but rather normal i guess...

http://www.asiaone.com.sg/streats/images/top1-1.gif

September 13, 2004
AirAsia keen to use Changi’s budget terminal

By Chua Kong Ho

BANGKOK-BASED budget carrier Thai AirAsia has become the second airline after Singapore’s Tiger Airways to state its interest in Changi’s upcoming budget terminal, which is due for completion in 2006. “We’ll be crazy not to use it if it’s cheaper,” AirAsia’s group chief executive, Mr Tony Fernandes, told reporters during a Singapore stopover on Friday.

Malaysia-based AirAsia owns 49 per cent of Thai AirAsia but runs its day-to-day operations.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) unveiled plans in July to build a $45 million budget terminal to cater to low-cost carriers, after Tiger Airways said it would use the terminal.

Mr Fernandes said that Thai AirAsia would add an additional flight to Bangkok from Oct 31 and start a daily service between Phuket and Singapore from Nov 5. However, direct flights between Malaysia and Singapore are not on the cards.

“Where’s my bus?” he asked in response to a question about the reason for not starting such a service. He was referring to the refusal by the Singapore authorities to approve direct bus links between Singapore and Senai Airport in Johor, where AirAsia has its southern hub.

The CAAS said in a written response that it “welcomes AirAsia to fly to Singapore, as this would stimulate and grow the tourism and travel market between Singapore and Malaysia. We wish to highlight that AirAsia does not need an Air Operator’s Certificate to start operations between Singapore and Malaysia. It can already do so as AirAsia.”

A report by AFP on Sunday, citing an unnamed source, said AirAsia could launch its initial public offering as early as October, after it secured preliminary approval from Malaysian authorities.

http://www.asiaone.com.sg/streats/images/top1-1.gif

September 13, 2004
AirAsia keen to use Changi’s budget terminal

By Chua Kong Ho


“Where’s my bus?” he asked in response to a question about the reason for not starting such a service. He was referring to the refusal by the Singapore authorities to approve direct bus links between Singapore and Senai Airport in Johor, where AirAsia has its southern hub.



Kaoz......he still whining about this??.......:bash:

:rofl:

The "where's my bus" whine....gosh....I can almost imagine him saying that as he flaps his arms in frustration! :D

:rofl:

The "where's my bus" whine....gosh....I can almost imagine him saying that as he flaps his arms in frustration! :D

Next question he might ask "where my airport??"......:lol::lol::lol:

nick-taylor: 2 international airports is always better than one in terms of being better able to cope with emergencies as with what you said...like having 2 dollars is better than having one dollar, i agree...
But, it simply does not make good planning sense to build 2 airports in the case of Singapore... airports just take up too much space... i can't imagine living in a Singapore where whether to the east or to the west of the island you will arrive at an airport (imagine the pollution, air and noise), and so much land is taken up not only for the airport development and also for the buffer zones in between...Well isn't Singapore great at land reclaimation. Yes land is sparse, but as I keep getting reminded - there has to be a long term plan. Now its quite possible to see Changi handling what, maybe 100mppa by say 2030? Now what after that? I really think that the maximum probable capacity of one airport is what - 200mppa? And that is taking into consideration say a "super super A380" coming into existance. London has explored for example the possibility of a 6th international airport at Cliffe. Not likely within the next 30 years, but beyond that? Probable. You also have to remember that Singapore will have to compete with other regional cities if it wishes to have a chance of competiting on the global stage. Afterall this is something that Singapore will undoubtedly look at very carefully if it wishes to remain a dominant force in the region. Something I bet most are hoping remains (as do I). :)

Who knows - Singapore might become super-militant and might decide to "expand" :laugh: and "acquire" more land. Who knows - the USA brought Alaska off of the Russians, the same might happen to Singapore's benefit. Don't forget land reclaimationto Singapore.

Also note that planes will continue to become more efficient - quieter, less fuel consumption, etc... not to mention larger :)


Thus, since we can't build a backup airport, we might as well maintain full security at the current one...why build a backup if you can maintain high levels of security at the current one, sure you may argue that security measures are not foolproof, but neither is having another international airport...this is already the most economical and sensible practical way of dealing with the issue already...Hmm - yes security increased at the primary airport is a good idea. However no matter how much training you give to people, how well educated they are or how advanced the technology you have - there will always be the possibility of a slip up.

This is afterall coming from somebody living in the UK where the IRA + RIRA have plagued British society for decades. Hell my father's office in Tower42 was disintegrated when the bomb went off in the City of London - thankfully he wasn't there but had he...

Thus Britain has always been "strict" towards the threat of terrorism (a joke for some across the pond in the US - that was of course before 9/11). Afterall - the best security is where you catch the would-be attackers early on. Not say, when they are boarding the plane. Infact Heathrow itself is believed to have been close to attack in the last 3 years no less than 3 times. One situation must have been close, cause as you may recall - heavy armour was brought in by the Army to deter any wanna-be attackers. But how many close call attacks trully happen - the security services won't divuge all this information for in fear of spreading panic. Hell - maybe Singapore has been a target, but this information has not been divulged! Afterall - islamic fundamentalism isn't something new to the region. A Bali nightclub like incident must be on Singapore's minds, considering Singapore's influence and "majestical" image in the region.


Correct me if I am wrong I really am not sure but I think London can't put all its traffic at one airport because Heathrow was built way long ago and had already been expanded several times...thus resulting in space constraints around the area? Heathrow has residential areas nearby right...Yep - Heathrow is surrounded on three sides by reasonably sized housing - ie not apartment towers, but not US style sprawl. It is something like the population of Singapore which lie under its flight path!

Most of the major players like Virgin, BA, etc want further growth to be concentrated at Heathrow. Simply because the larger Heathrow, the more money they are likely to make. However, that doesn't explain Gatwick which when built could have quite easily had its capacity "put" into Heathrow. Then there is Luton and City and of course Stansted which is something totally different - its a budget airport in its own right with a capacity at around 20mppa and growing at around 10-20% per annum. Stansted has flourished simply because it is not "stuck" to the limits of Heathrow. Afterall, the gates at Heathrow are among some of the most expensive in the world - budget carriers simply wouldn't be able to function as a low cost carrier!

The same urban barriers are around Gatwick to the north and south, while Stansted is less "limited". There however was a call decades ago for "distribution" of the air traffic, both by businesses, the regional population and by several airliners to lower costs. For example - those living under the flight path of Heathrow must be really unlucky bastards, while having a concentration of all flights out of one side of London would just be too problematic. Infact if your travelling around the M25 orbital motorway the choke points are at: the M4, M11 and M23 junctions. These are correspondingly the main Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick motorway intersections. For instance - Gatwick is slap bang at the centre of the London-Brighton corridor. Stansted slap band in the middle of the London-Cambridge corridor. Heathrow is in turn in urban London and eminates all along the M4 corridor as far as Cardiff in Wales. Luton is half way inbetween Britian's fastest growing city: Milton Keynes and London. City for instance was built to stimulte the growth of the Docklands which is a massive area (sometimes people think its limited to Canary Wharf - but the docklands is roughly an area 100-200x that of Canary Wharf). Then there was the possibility of a 6th international airport - not to the north (Stansted), not to the west (Heathrow) and not to the south (Gatwick) - but to the east out on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary called Cliffe (expect though by 2050 an airport going by this name and in this rea though). Cliffe would have been at the epicentre of the great Thames Gateway project that will see within the span of 10 years: 200,000 homes and 150,000 jobs created. As you might not be aware - all the airports have, are and will continue to be in "development" corridors ever since the end of WW2.


Changi instead can do so firstly because it is forced to, there is no space for another airport, and also because it was built recently and has such there is still much more room to expand...cause the nearest residences are very far away...and it is expanding in the direction of the sea...Exactly - the sea is the way or you ould annexe land to the north ;)


What about Incheon International? All international traffic is bundled up there, and they have the land for another airport, so why did they not have another one? Isn't that worse than being in Singapore's situation? where they have the land and yet they only have one airport...unlike Singapore...They aren't thinking long term like London and Singapore and aren't looking to the problems that it will pose for the future. :laugh:


London being larger, can afford to have another international airport as well as maintaining high levels of security at its current one, as it has the space...meaning it has a better preparedness of sorts against any emergencies...Singapore just can't...I am sure there will be a public outcry against any plans to build another airport...Hmmm - being larger is a double edge sword. Yes it is significantly larger than Singapore. Infact you could fit Singapore into all the green open areas of London. But that doesn't mean land is easy to come by. It is however not the USA, and densities are still critically high and it is still one of the densest countries on the face of the planet. Another problem is actually finding the land without destroying ancient homes. For instance - the expansion of Stansted Airport will mean the destruction of historic homes - some dating back beyond 500 years not in the dozens, but the hundreds. Having thus the main critical airports to the north, south and west (and eventually the east). Liberties are stronger in the UK than in say Singapore and this means it is harder to say "right the airport will go here and that is it. Cause even a minority can cause massive annoyance. I for one can speak for this as I live in a wee town called Bishop's Stortford, its next door neighbour: London Stansted Airport. The local papers constantly write about how its going to destroy the area. The airport write back stating that it won't and that it will create jobs for the region.....so on and so forth.

I seem to be the minority in the local area in that I believe that the airport is needed to ensure London's dominance as the world's premier financial and business centre remains. The extent that people will go to make a point is dramatic - marches to Whitehall, getting an MP to petition Parliament, all the normal stuff - but to a fanatical level that encourages political debate.

Safe to say - if London and the surrounding areas had the regimental political organisation of Singapore then there would probably be one very large airport and not a "dispursement" of the burden of the aviation industry.


Again, I emphasize that London is so different from Singapore, London has the land, it can build can many backups for any facility, we don't...blame it on our luck on having only a small island...not for our bad judgement...No I ain't blaming your bad judgement - it would undoubtedly be in Singapore's long term interests (ie next 100 years) to have a 2nd airport. Thus like I said - Singapore might do an Alaska to Malaysia, Indonesia or someone else - who knows. London also doesn't have all the problems of Singapore, but then Singapore doesn't have all the problems that London and the surrounding regions deal with :)


The discussion is getting pretty tense here, everyone relax...everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how different they are just as mine is...it is not meant to offend anyone, just rebut me if you think otherwise...just treat it as viewing things from a different perspective but you don't have to admit that its right...this is only a discussion...just give a ''OH, THATS a different way to look at things...'' is sufficient...Exactly..........the invasion fleet to retake Singapore is on its way ;) :laugh:

Well isn't Singapore great at land reclaimation. Yes land is sparse, but as I keep getting reminded - there has to be a long term plan. Now its quite possible to see Changi handling what, maybe 100mppa by say 2030? Now what after that? I really think that the maximum probable capacity of one airport is what - 200mppa? And that is taking into consideration say a "super super A380" coming into existance. London has explored for example the possibility of a 6th international airport at Cliffe. Not likely within the next 30 years, but beyond that? Probable. You also have to remember that Singapore will have to compete with other regional cities if it wishes to have a chance of competiting on the global stage. Afterall this is something that Singapore will undoubtedly look at very carefully if it wishes to remain a dominant force in the region. Something I bet most are hoping remains (as do I). :)

Who knows - Singapore might become super-militant and might decide to "expand" :laugh: and "acquire" more land. Who knows - the USA brought Alaska off of the Russians, the same might happen to Singapore's benefit. Don't forget land reclaimationto Singapore.

Also note that planes will continue to become more efficient - quieter, less fuel consumption, etc... not to mention larger :)


Hmm - yes security increased at the primary airport is a good idea. However no matter how much training you give to people, how well educated they are or how advanced the technology you have - there will always be the possibility of a slip up.

This is afterall coming from somebody living in the UK where the IRA + RIRA have plagued British society for decades. Hell my father's office in Tower42 was disintegrated when the bomb went off in the City of London - thankfully he wasn't there but had he...

Thus Britain has always been "strict" towards the threat of terrorism (a joke for some across the pond in the US - that was of course before 9/11). Afterall - the best security is where you catch the would-be attackers early on. Not say, when they are boarding the plane. Infact Heathrow itself is believed to have been close to attack in the last 3 years no less than 3 times. One situation must have been close, cause as you may recall - heavy armour was brought in by the Army to deter any wanna-be attackers. But how many close call attacks trully happen - the security services won't divuge all this information for in fear of spreading panic. Hell - maybe Singapore has been a target, but this information has not been divulged! Afterall - islamic fundamentalism isn't something new to the region. A Bali nightclub like incident must be on Singapore's minds, considering Singapore's influence and "majestical" image in the region.


Yep - Heathrow is surrounded on three sides by reasonably sized housing - ie not apartment towers, but not US style sprawl. It is something like the population of Singapore which lie under its flight path!

Most of the major players like Virgin, BA, etc want further growth to be concentrated at Heathrow. Simply because the larger Heathrow, the more money they are likely to make. However, that doesn't explain Gatwick which when built could have quite easily had its capacity "put" into Heathrow. Then there is Luton and City and of course Stansted which is something totally different - its a budget airport in its own right with a capacity at around 20mppa and growing at around 10-20% per annum. Stansted has flourished simply because it is not "stuck" to the limits of Heathrow. Afterall, the gates at Heathrow are among some of the most expensive in the world - budget carriers simply wouldn't be able to function as a low cost carrier!

The same urban barriers are around Gatwick to the north and south, while Stansted is less "limited". There however was a call decades ago for "distribution" of the air traffic, both by businesses, the regional population and by several airliners to lower costs. For example - those living under the flight path of Heathrow must be really unlucky bastards, while having a concentration of all flights out of one side of London would just be too problematic. Infact if your travelling around the M25 orbital motorway the choke points are at: the M4, M11 and M23 junctions. These are correspondingly the main Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick motorway intersections. For instance - Gatwick is slap bang at the centre of the London-Brighton corridor. Stansted slap band in the middle of the London-Cambridge corridor. Heathrow is in turn in urban London and eminates all along the M4 corridor as far as Cardiff in Wales. Luton is half way inbetween Britian's fastest growing city: Milton Keynes and London. City for instance was built to stimulte the growth of the Docklands which is a massive area (sometimes people think its limited to Canary Wharf - but the docklands is roughly an area 100-200x that of Canary Wharf). Then there was the possibility of a 6th international airport - not to the north (Stansted), not to the west (Heathrow) and not to the south (Gatwick) - but to the east out on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary called Cliffe (expect though by 2050 an airport going by this name and in this rea though). Cliffe would have been at the epicentre of the great Thames Gateway project that will see within the span of 10 years: 200,000 homes and 150,000 jobs created. As you might not be aware - all the airports have, are and will continue to be in "development" corridors ever since the end of WW2.


Exactly - the sea is the way or you ould annexe land to the north ;)


They aren't thinking long term like London and Singapore and aren't looking to the problems that it will pose for the future. :laugh:


Hmmm - being larger is a double edge sword. Yes it is significantly larger than Singapore. Infact you could fit Singapore into all the green open areas of London. But that doesn't mean land is easy to come by. It is however not the USA, and densities are still critically high and it is still one of the densest countries on the face of the planet. Another problem is actually finding the land without destroying ancient homes. For instance - the expansion of Stansted Airport will mean the destruction of historic homes - some dating back beyond 500 years not in the dozens, but the hundreds. Having thus the main critical airports to the north, south and west (and eventually the east). Liberties are stronger in the UK than in say Singapore and this means it is harder to say "right the airport will go here and that is it. Cause even a minority can cause massive annoyance. I for one can speak for this as I live in a wee town called Bishop's Stortford, its next door neighbour: London Stansted Airport. The local papers constantly write about how its going to destroy the area. The airport write back stating that it won't and that it will create jobs for the region.....so on and so forth.

I seem to be the minority in the local area in that I believe that the airport is needed to ensure London's dominance as the world's premier financial and business centre remains. The extent that people will go to make a point is dramatic - marches to Whitehall, getting an MP to petition Parliament, all the normal stuff - but to a fanatical level that encourages political debate.

Safe to say - if London and the surrounding areas had the regimental political organisation of Singapore then there would probably be one very large airport and not a "dispursement" of the burden of the aviation industry.


No I ain't blaming your bad judgement - it would undoubtedly be in Singapore's long term interests (ie next 100 years) to have a 2nd airport. Thus like I said - Singapore might do an Alaska to Malaysia, Indonesia or someone else - who knows. London also doesn't have all the problems of Singapore, but then Singapore doesn't have all the problems that London and the surrounding regions deal with :)


Exactly..........the invasion fleet to retake Singapore is on its way ;) :laugh:

There is only so much land that we can reclaim from the sea... The main reason is that shipping lanes and anchorages have to be preserved and not sacrificed (Shipping traffic is growing at an immense rate too)... Most of the land that can be reclaimed is already reclaimed... And the majority of it is found at Changi... So if you want to build another airport, it has to be there...

Flight paths have to be over the ocean to avoid the problems faced at Sydney's airport (No 24 hour operations). If you site the second airport to the north of the island, no matter which direction that plane comes from it will have to fly over land... If you site it to the south of the island, nope! Central Business District. If you site it to the centre of the island, you will fly over land again... You could site it to the west or expand into the west as flight paths would still be over the sea... These are the only two options... But the western area is a massive industrial area so you simply cannot sacrifice Singapore's industrial core so that there is a backup airport... And further up north is the water catchment areas so you simply cannot sacrifice Singapore's water resources for a backup airport...

If Singapore builds another backup airport, it means in today's terms building another airport with a minimum of 30mppa. 40mppa or so if you do not want your 30m passengers to feel as though you are pushing them against the wall of the airport. So when passenger numbers are at 30mppa, you must have 80mppa capacity for all airports... That means 15mppa per 40mppa capacity airport. This being so, if one airport were destroyed, the 30mppa can still transfer to the backup airport... Good idea... BUT, it is a major underutilisation of airport capacity... Detrimental to the economy annually to have a underutilised airport...

And if one airport especially a hub like Changi is destroyed... even if there is a backup airport... are you sure airlines will still want to fly to Singapore? So why the need for the backup airport of 40mppa if traffic has difficulty reaching 1mppa? The 30mppa traffic will not return for a long time...

Either way, a backup airport of that scale though theoratically is good, it is fact is not...

If the backup airport is of a very small scale, things would be different. But since its going to be small anyways, why not use Seletar Airport... If Changi were destroyed, the 1mppa passengers that still fly to Singapore after that can still use Seletar comfortably while a new one is constructed...

Singapore...with a predominantly chinese population...doing a Alaska to Indonesia or Malaysia in the region with the highest concentration of Muslims? That idea is ludicrious...whether now or a century later...how do you think the rest of the islamic world will react to this? There is no likelihood whatsoever that this will occur... No offence...

Oh I forgot to say...........THAT'S A SUPER LONG ENTRY! Wow... :eek2:

There is only so much land that we can reclaim from the sea... The main reason is that shipping lanes and anchorages have to be preserved and not sacrificed (Shipping traffic is growing at an immense rate too)... Most of the land that can be reclaimed is already reclaimed... And the majority of it is found at Changi... So if you want to build another airport, it has to be there...Maybe Singapore could start buying the land to the north from Malaysia - its been done before around the world and might be economically worth while :)


Flight paths have to be over the ocean to avoid the problems faced at Sydney's airport (No 24 hour operations). If you site the second airport to the north of the island, no matter which direction that plane comes from it will have to fly over land... If you site it to the south of the island, nope! Central Business District. If you site it to the centre of the island, you will fly over land again... You could site it to the west or expand into the west as flight paths would still be over the sea... These are the only two options... But the western area is a massive industrial area so you simply cannot sacrifice Singapore's industrial core so that there is a backup airport... And further up north is the water catchment areas so you simply cannot sacrifice Singapore's water resources for a backup airport...Heathrow has the same problems whereby it can't have 24hr operation (22 hr operation for Gatwick and 24hr operation for Stansted I believe). What about a north-westerly/south-easterly axis to the far south-west, ie Jurong/Tuas area - but on reclaimed land. I also thought that the main CBD was restricted to 280m due to Changi anyway? I'm not saying that Singapore should build a 2nd airport just for emergencies - no it could take the strain in decades to come from Changi when it starts to experience quicker growth.


If Singapore builds another backup airport, it means in today's terms building another airport with a minimum of 30mppa. 40mppa or so if you do not want your 30m passengers to feel as though you are pushing them against the wall of the airport. So when passenger numbers are at 30mppa, you must have 80mppa capacity for all airports... That means 15mppa per 40mppa capacity airport. This being so, if one airport were destroyed, the 30mppa can still transfer to the backup airport... Good idea... BUT, it is a major underutilisation of airport capacity... Detrimental to the economy annually to have a underutilised airport...Doesn't need to be small to be comfortable - Stansted (if you have ever been there) has a very large open space as the main terminal and then a monorail to the satellites but started out only as a max capacity of around 15mppa (its now been extended to over 25mppa). Building such an airport now wouldn't probably be economically viable - but for 30-50 years down the line.....probably.


And if one airport especially a hub like Changi is destroyed... even if there is a backup airport... are you sure airlines will still want to fly to Singapore? So why the need for the backup airport of 40mppa if traffic has difficulty reaching 1mppa? The 30mppa traffic will not return for a long time...Well if the unthinkable happens and all the surrounding nations decline to allow planes to land in their country to service as the "backup" for Singapore. A second international airport would act as a security buffer. Remember that its better that counter-measures are in place in dire emergencies. Maybe not for Singapore now - but lik I say, its an option that shouldn't be overlooked in say 30-50 years time.


Either way, a backup airport of that scale though theoratically is good, it is fact is not...That is why it shouldn't just be a backup airport. It should actually be a functioning international airport. Just a few days ago - planes from Heathrow were being diverted to Stansted and Gatwick because of complications at Heathrow. Gatwick and Stansted are functional airports as you might be aware of :)


If the backup airport is of a very small scale, things would be different. But since its going to be small anyways, why not use Seletar Airport... If Changi were destroyed, the 1mppa passengers that still fly to Singapore after that can still use Seletar comfortably while a new one is constructed...Why rely on your foreign competitors? Who knows what political crisis might evolve where everyone in the region forgets who Singapore is - it sounds dramatic, but totally possible. :)


Singapore...with a predominantly chinese population...doing a Alaska to Indonesia or Malaysia in the region with the highest concentration of Muslims? That idea is ludicrious...whether now or a century later...how do you think the rest of the islamic world will react to this? There is no likelihood whatsoever that this will occur... No offence...They have large tracts of land - they might be willing to sell it. For instance London's "metro" (thanks to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) has expanded into North France, ala Calais. Quite a few people now commute from the area onto the train. It will soon be around 1hr from France to Central London and house prices are far cheaper. There is even call for Kent (a county in South East England) to become fused with Calais so that taxes can be shared for those who do vice versa and live in England but commute to Paris - crazy but its done on a daily basis in the thousands :laugh:

But England won't be annexing/buying Calais any time soon - its French for christs sake (jk) ;) :laugh:

But honestly - if Singapore offered Malaysia enough money - they would probably be willing to sell :)


Oh I forgot to say...........THAT'S A SUPER LONG ENTRY! Wow... You haven't seen any of my posts in the Singapore Vs London and London Vs New York threads then - that above one is "mediocre" :laugh:

Such a long-winded reply, and the first comments already got me cracking.

Nick, I hope that being a geography student yourself, you ought to have at least display some basic knowledge with regards to the land reclamation process. It is not like you could reclaim the world's oceans if you want to.

As ignoramus has deligently explained, and which you chose to ignore and respond with highly ridiculous (if not immature) answers (you guys will do better switching names I suppose! :D ) , land reclamation is limited by two main issues here.....the technical reason based on seabed depth, and the need to not only not encrouch into the international sea lanes, which is one of the chief artileries of the global shipping network, as well as reserving space for ship anchorages, the number of ships of coz being humongous considering that we are talking about arugably the busiest port in the world.

If you at least display some knowledge in "your birthland," you would have known that the Malaysian side does sit up with concern when Singapore's reclamation efforts get too close to the marine border, or treatens to narrow shipping channels which are international passageways.

Yes yes......so you lived here for dunt noe how many months/years of your early life, but you obviously do not know more about this city or this area then you would before you left! :D

Maybe Singapore could start buying the land to the north from Malaysia - its been done before around the world and might be economically worth while :)


Heathrow has the same problems whereby it can't have 24hr operation (22 hr operation for Gatwick and 24hr operation for Stansted I believe). What about a north-westerly/south-easterly axis to the far south-west, ie Jurong/Tuas area - but on reclaimed land. I also thought that the main CBD was restricted to 280m due to Changi anyway? I'm not saying that Singapore should build a 2nd airport just for emergencies - no it could take the strain in decades to come from Changi when it starts to experience quicker growth.


Doesn't need to be small to be comfortable - Stansted (if you have ever been there) has a very large open space as the main terminal and then a monorail to the satellites but started out only as a max capacity of around 15mppa (its now been extended to over 25mppa). Building such an airport now wouldn't probably be economically viable - but for 30-50 years down the line.....probably.


Well if the unthinkable happens and all the surrounding nations decline to allow planes to land in their country to service as the "backup" for Singapore. A second international airport would act as a security buffer. Remember that its better that counter-measures are in place in dire emergencies. Maybe not for Singapore now - but lik I say, its an option that shouldn't be overlooked in say 30-50 years time.


That is why it shouldn't just be a backup airport. It should actually be a functioning international airport. Just a few days ago - planes from Heathrow were being diverted to Stansted and Gatwick because of complications at Heathrow. Gatwick and Stansted are functional airports as you might be aware of :)


Why rely on your foreign competitors? Who knows what political crisis might evolve where everyone in the region forgets who Singapore is - it sounds dramatic, but totally possible. :)


They have large tracts of land - they might be willing to sell it. For instance London's "metro" (thanks to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) has expanded into North France, ala Calais. Quite a few people now commute from the area onto the train. It will soon be around 1hr from France to Central London and house prices are far cheaper. There is even call for Kent (a county in South East England) to become fused with Calais so that taxes can be shared for those who do vice versa and live in England but commute to Paris - crazy but its done on a daily basis in the thousands :laugh:

But England won't be annexing/buying Calais any time soon - its French for christs sake (jk) ;) :laugh:

But honestly - if Singapore offered Malaysia enough money - they would probably be willing to sell :)


You haven't seen any of my posts in the Singapore Vs London and London Vs New York threads then - that above one is "mediocre" :laugh:

Interesting... Didn't know that transactions involving the buying and selling of land was still being conducted today. After all, the news has been all about island ownership claims throughout the world... Governments have grown to be very sensitive over land issues...

I was referring to the fact that in the event that the sole international airport is destroyed, a small airport like Seletar Airport is sufficient to handle the traffic since such an event is likely to pull air traffic down to perhaps a mere million mppa while the main international airport is rebuilt. Hence, there is no need for a second international airport. This is assuming that the scenario is that Changi Airport is destroyed. I did NOT mention that we should depend on our foreign competitors...but even if we did they would gladly accept the million or so passengers we give to them for the time being... I did not mean that Seletar Airport would be the main international airport for the future, that is just the ''backup'' for whatever air traffic remaining till the new international airport is up and ready and by that time it would be ready to handle the increasing number of flights...

Even if there was no talk of any airport being destroyed but rather as with what you said the backup is just to prepare for any sudden increases in air traffic, a backup is still not necessary... If there were to be any sudden increases in air traffic which to a certain extent is possible but not dramatically possible, Changi Airport would be able to match the increase as unlike other international airports, Changi Airport is always built with around a 20mppa excess capacity buffer...and when Terminal 3 opens in 2008, Changi probably would have around 25 mppa excess capacity. Therefore, assuming that air traffic increases at an alarming rate of 10 million a year, Changi Airport would still have time to proceed on building new terminals... So why the need for a backup? The current one can already handle surges in traffic... Even if a backup was built, for instance a 30 mppa one in Tuas, it would not be feasible as the diverted traffic from Changi Airport would result in Singapore having 2 underutilised terminals rather than 1. Having one underutilised is already sufficient to create the ''emptiness'' effect in Changi Airport and the economic cost is worth it, but having 2 makes no sense... And having 2 international airports will take up considerable space... Looking at the map Changi Airport takes up enough space as it is...having 2 would have a disasterous effect on Singapore's garden city image, environment, take up precious land and a whole lot of other replanning... If Changi Airport does not have enough space to expand already and requires another airport, what makes you think that there is enough space to go around elsewhere... By the time Changi Airport reaches its full capacity, population would have grown and developments around the island would have taken up most of the space...

When I was talking about backup airports not being feasible I was referring to them being underutilised, not referring to them not being open in the first place... Underutilisation is a major drain on the economy's resources...

This model may work for London and other cities but in Singapore's case it does not seem to be really feasible... Heathrow cannot be expanded rapidly so that must be the reason why London has several airports, which in Singapore's case Changi Airport can be expanded rapidly. London is massive so you would not want only one airport where the traffic buildup on the roads is heavy as well as bad accessibility factors for those living in opposite ends of London so I guess it is better for London to have airports in different areas, again this is not true for Singapore. London can afford to have backup airports not only because of expansion problems, but also because of the factors above...and along the way London benefits too in case of emergencies by having more airports... Singapore does not have the above factors working in its favour. So out of the 3 reasons mentioned, there is only one reason why Singapore should have a backup and that is not enough...

I understand your point in there being a need for a second international airport and if I thought from that perspective I would agree too but unless thorough research is being conducted on whether there is a need or not, insisting that another one is needed is not of much help...

Next question he might ask "where my airport??"......:lol::lol::lol:


Well......I think he might be asking that very soon in Malaysia! He's hot in getting the govt to reopened Subang Airport as a badget airport :D :D :D

Maybe Singapore could start buying the land to the north from Malaysia - its been done before around the world and might be economically worth while :)




Errr.......there is still a dispute over an island (Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Putih) just off the coast of the state of Johor with Singapore so I dun think Malaysia is that desperate to sell its land. Even if the Malaysian Federal govt trying to buy state land, it involved a series of complicated negotiation so another country buying off land from Johor (which is kinda rich by the way).......well Singapore might have better luck buying over Bintan Islands from Indonesia :lol:

.....but then again......looking at how the Indonesian authorities trying to wrestle Sarawak and North Borneo from Malaysia in the past and also the recent dispute over Ligitan and Sipadan islands ....oh and not forgetting claiming parts of the Spratlys......I dun think Indonesia is willing to part with its land, no matter how much Singapore is to offer em ;)

^

Singapore of course, taking land off Indonesia for its reclamation :lol:

I dont know in what century he is living in for sure....how often do we have countries being territories from each other in today's day and age?

And buying that land to build an airport in case of emergencies?? Hey we do not have oil under our land and seas! :D

I dont know in what century he is living in for sure....how often do we have countries being territories from each other in today's day and age?

And buying that land to build an airport in case of emergencies?? Hey we do not have oil under our land and seas! :D

I dun think that is achievable......since when we heard news that other countries selling their lands to Singapore.......

Or to any other country for that matter....

Ironically, Singapore once sold land....Christmas Island was "sold" to Australia! :D

I dont know in what century he is living in for sure....how often do we have countries being territories from each other in today's day and age?

And buying that land to build an airport in case of emergencies?? Hey we do not have oil under our land and seas! :D

Singapore would have better luck invading other countries for land :D

Such a long-winded reply, and the first comments already got me cracking.

Nick, I hope that being a geography student yourself, you ought to have at least display some basic knowledge with regards to the land reclamation process. It is not like you could reclaim the world's oceans if you want to.Never said that - international boundaries do shift though from year to year and I'm a socio-economic geographer which is different from a physical geographer.....


As ignoramus has deligently explained, and which you chose to ignore and respond with highly ridiculous (if not immature) answers (you guys will do better switching names I suppose! ) , land reclamation is limited by two main issues here.....the technical reason based on seabed depth, and the need to not only not encrouch into the international sea lanes, which is one of the chief artileries of the global shipping network, as well as reserving space for ship anchorages, the number of ships of coz being humongous considering that we are talking about arugably the busiest port in the world.Firstly what is wrong with suggesting a 2nd international airport?

Secondly what is immature about that - about as mature as you saying that London should amalgamate all its airports into one?

Thirdly - yes there are limitations to land reclamation, but technologies continue to improve and as you might be aware Singapore isn't geographically one island - but a collection of islands. For example a runway alignment at Pulai Bukum is a possibility (in my honest quick opinion) but this isn't something I demand nor expect, but a feasability study. Of course if I were to go into more detail I bet there could be an alignment to the west which would prove no more detrimental than Changi already is.

Fourthly like I said previously, in 30-50 years would it only become definately feasible. You only have to look to current aviation recessions to show that such a situation as proposed by moi would be unviable

Fithly - yes it is arguably the world's busiest port (;)), but there are ways around this - creating new specific channels channels and introducing more stringent controls on ships coming in, harbouring and docking, etc and of course new aligned channels - this is not for now like I said :)


If you at least display some knowledge in "your birthland," you would have known that the Malaysian side does sit up with concern when Singapore's reclamation efforts get too close to the marine border, or treatens to narrow shipping channels which are international passageways.Ah but there are areas that don't violate all of these. There are always around this all within safety limits. :)


Yes yes......so you lived here for dunt noe how many months/years of your early life, but you obviously do not know more about this city or this area then you would before you left!Well I know enough :)

You still haven't answered though my main question have all this time - why have the budget terminal isolated to the side of the airport and not totally connected with the other terminals? Is it going to eventually be connected up, or is to remain isolated like some bad child?













Interesting... Didn't know that transactions involving the buying and selling of land was still being conducted today. After all, the news has been all about island ownership claims throughout the world... Governments have grown to be very sensitive over land issues...Yep its frowned upon but hey political and social circumstances change on a daily basis - you just don't know. Hell for all we know - tomorrow; Malaysia goes to war with Singapore, looses and has to give up land to Singapore - keep an open mind I say ;)


I was referring to the fact that in the event that the sole international airport is destroyed, a small airport like Seletar Airport is sufficient to handle the traffic since such an event is likely to pull air traffic down to perhaps a mere million mppa while the main international airport is rebuilt. Hence, there is no need for a second international airport. This is assuming that the scenario is that Changi Airport is destroyed. I did NOT mention that we should depend on our foreign competitors...but even if we did they would gladly accept the million or so passengers we give to them for the time being... I did not mean that Seletar Airport would be the main international airport for the future, that is just the ''backup'' for whatever air traffic remaining till the new international airport is up and ready and by that time it would be ready to handle the increasing number of flights...I'm not looking at a temporary situation - but a long term (ie at least 100 years) - Changi probably won't be able to contain all the growth that the airport in a rapidly industrialising region will require. I'm talking permanent in the next 30-50 year period. Might sound crazy now (where is this "long term plan" that I keep repeatedly hearding), but Changi will continue to grow fast - what are the plans? Continue to add and add more terminals on to Changi? The political stance in the region could go awry, Seletar or any of the other numerous runways in Singapore would be less of an option than a 2nd full blown future international airport.


Even if there was no talk of any airport being destroyed but rather as with what you said the backup is just to prepare for any sudden increases in air traffic, a backup is still not necessary... If there were to be any sudden increases in air traffic which to a certain extent is possible but not dramatically possible, Changi Airport would be able to match the increase as unlike other international airports, Changi Airport is always built with around a 20mppa excess capacity buffer...and when Terminal 3 opens in 2008, Changi probably would have around 25 mppa excess capacity. Therefore, assuming that air traffic increases at an alarming rate of 10 million a year, Changi Airport would still have time to proceed on building new terminals... So why the need for a backup? The current one can already handle surges in traffic... Even if a backup was built, for instance a 30 mppa one in Tuas, it would not be feasible as the diverted traffic from Changi Airport would result in Singapore having 2 underutilised terminals rather than 1. Having one underutilised is already sufficient to create the ''emptiness'' effect in Changi Airport and the economic cost is worth it, but having 2 makes no sense... And having 2 international airports will take up considerable space... Looking at the map Changi Airport takes up enough space as it is...having 2 would have a disasterous effect on Singapore's garden city image, environment, take up precious land and a whole lot of other replanning... If Changi Airport does not have enough space to expand already and requires another airport, what makes you think that there is enough space to go around elsewhere... By the time Changi Airport reaches its full capacity, population would have grown and developments around the island would have taken up most of the space...Understandable - but I'm not looking now, but in the distant future, at least before 2050. So Changi would probably be what by 2030 - 90mppa being the upper limit (60mppa being the median)?? But what about after that? Remember also that planes will continue to become more economically friendly.




When I was talking about backup airports not being feasible I was referring to them being underutilised, not referring to them not being open in the first place... Underutilisation is a major drain on the economy's resources...In todays world it would be. In the Singapore of 2050.........forward thinking :)


This model may work for London and other cities but in Singapore's case it does not seem to be really feasible... Heathrow cannot be expanded rapidly so that must be the reason why London has several airports, which in Singapore's case Changi Airport can be expanded rapidly. London is massive so you would not want only one airport where the traffic buildup on the roads is heavy as well as bad accessibility factors for those living in opposite ends of London so I guess it is better for London to have airports in different areas, again this is not true for Singapore. London can afford to have backup airports not only because of expansion problems, but also because of the factors above...and along the way London benefits too in case of emergencies by having more airports... Singapore does not have the above factors working in its favour. So out of the 3 reasons mentioned, there is only one reason why Singapore should have a backup and that is not enough...Even though London has the land, it doesn't mean its easy to build the airports. Infact I would go as far as to say that there would be much more hostility towards an airport in the London area than there would be in Singapore. Thankfully it doesn't get violent!


I understand your point in there being a need for a second international airport and if I thought from that perspective I would agree too but unless thorough research is being conducted on whether there is a need or not, insisting that another one is needed is not of much help...No of course not, but for the long term future of Singapore as an international air hub and to continue competing with the regional cities which are quickly building up their own hubs






Errr.......there is still a dispute over an island (Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Putih) just off the coast of the state of Johor with Singapore so I dun think Malaysia is that desperate to sell its land. Even if the Malaysian Federal govt trying to buy state land, it involved a series of complicated negotiation so another country buying off land from Johor (which is kinda rich by the way).......well Singapore might have better luck buying over Bintan Islands from Indonesia

.....but then again......looking at how the Indonesian authorities trying to wrestle Sarawak and North Borneo from Malaysia in the past and also the recent dispute over Ligitan and Sipadan islands ....oh and not forgetting claiming parts of the Spratlys......I dun think Indonesia is willing to part with its land, no matter how much Singapore is to offer em Who said anything offering anything for it? I say annexation is in order :laugh:

Never said that - international boundaries do shift though from year to year and I'm a socio-economic geographer which is different from a physical geographer.....


Firstly what is wrong with suggesting a 2nd international airport?

Secondly what is immature about that - about as mature as you saying that London should amalgamate all its airports into one?

Thirdly - yes there are limitations to land reclamation, but technologies continue to improve and as you might be aware Singapore isn't geographically one island - but a collection of islands. For example a runway alignment at Pulai Bukum is a possibility (in my honest quick opinion) but this isn't something I demand nor expect, but a feasability study. Of course if I were to go into more detail I bet there could be an alignment to the west which would prove no more detrimental than Changi already is.

Fourthly like I said previously, in 30-50 years would it only become definately feasible. You only have to look to current aviation recessions to show that such a situation as proposed by moi would be unviable

Fithly - yes it is arguably the world's busiest port (;)), but there are ways around this - creating new specific channels channels and introducing more stringent controls on ships coming in, harbouring and docking, etc and of course new aligned channels - this is not for now like I said :)


Ah but there are areas that don't violate all of these. There are always around this all within safety limits. :)


Well I know enough :)

You still haven't answered though my main question have all this time - why have the budget terminal isolated to the side of the airport and not totally connected with the other terminals? Is it going to eventually be connected up, or is to remain isolated like some bad child?













Yep its frowned upon but hey political and social circumstances change on a daily basis - you just don't know. Hell for all we know - tomorrow; Malaysia goes to war with Singapore, looses and has to give up land to Singapore - keep an open mind I say ;)


I'm not looking at a temporary situation - but a long term (ie at least 100 years) - Changi probably won't be able to contain all the growth that the airport in a rapidly industrialising region will require. I'm talking permanent in the next 30-50 year period. Might sound crazy now (where is this "long term plan" that I keep repeatedly hearding), but Changi will continue to grow fast - what are the plans? Continue to add and add more terminals on to Changi? The political stance in the region could go awry, Seletar or any of the other numerous runways in Singapore would be less of an option than a 2nd full blown future international airport.


Understandable - but I'm not looking now, but in the distant future, at least before 2050. So Changi would probably be what by 2030 - 90mppa being the upper limit (60mppa being the median)?? But what about after that? Remember also that planes will continue to become more economically friendly.




In todays world it would be. In the Singapore of 2050.........forward thinking :)


Even though London has the land, it doesn't mean its easy to build the airports. Infact I would go as far as to say that there would be much more hostility towards an airport in the London area than there would be in Singapore. Thankfully it doesn't get violent!


No of course not, but for the long term future of Singapore as an international air hub and to continue competing with the regional cities which are quickly building up their own hubs






Who said anything offering anything for it? I say annexation is in order :laugh:

Okay I get what you are saying...that there would come a time where there is the need for another international airport after 2050...that doesn't sound bad nor wrong...after all like you said traffic would be tremendous by then...so I guess I have to agree with you on this...there is only so much you can expand...but since we are talking about 2050 here whereas its only 2004 now, its okay to not plan about having another international airport at the moment for our ability to handle traffic up to 2050 is pretty much secured...when it is nearer to the date lets say 2035 2040 the government knowingly will plan for another airport if necessary as according to the conditions then cause if we plan now and conditions change the plan will be wasted...planning for it now is not really feasible as like you said, conditions will change so there is no point...however, setting aside general pieces of land for other purposes for the future be it additional land for housing or infrastructure now is already done by Singapore as seen by the focus on building high rises when there is obviously still a lot of land left...

But this airport most probably will be constructed because of the inability for Changi to continue to cope with the rising traffic, not because of emergencies etc. That should not be the main rationale behind having another airport...if so we have to build backups for absolutely everything in Singapore... Like I doubt Stansted etc was built as a emergency backup but rather to cope with the over congested Heathrow, evident in the huge flight cancellations by BA in recent days and months...so a second airport is good, but not now definitely...and having multiple airports should not be a main priority for authorities unless it is unavoidable...I doubt the US government and even the UK intended for there to be so many airports...I am okay and agree with the idea of a 2nd airport, but not now...unless it is required and there is no other choice in the future...

But I strongly disagree with what you said about buying land etc...The political situation here is very different from that in the UK. Singapore is in a very sensitive region...so what works elsewhere might not work here...don't count fully on buying land from others just yet...there is still the main issue of religion here...seriously even 50 years down the road unless there are benefits to both sides, tremendous benefits, eg Muslims wouldn't want to see their territory being sold to a Chinese country and vice versa...these issues are just too sensitive...

Well......I think he might be asking that very soon in Malaysia! He's hot in getting the govt to reopened Subang Airport as a badget airport :D :D :D

Airasia carried about 2 million pasengers through KLIA in 2003, right??

Airasia carried about 2 million pasengers through KLIA in 2003, right??


yup.......I personally support KLIA to built a low-cost terminal.........but shd the Subang airport conversion took place......I would think that there shd be a seemless connection from KLIA to Subang ;)

yup.......I personally support KLIA to built a low-cost terminal.........but shd the Subang airport conversion took place......I would think that there shd be a seemless connection from KLIA to Subang ;)

Seemless connection from KLIA to Subang?? A rail link??

Seemless connection from KLIA to Subang?? A rail link??


well.....anything! :D :D :D

rail (maybe too expensive and it won't get built in such a short notice) .....or even shuttle busses.....

well.....anything! :D :D :D

rail (maybe too expensive and it won't get built in such a short notice) .....or even shuttle busses.....

Shuttle bus ah?? Hmm.....some might complain(they dun even like Changi 5 min shuttle service to the budget terminal...:cry: ).....:lol: :jk:

Shuttle bus ah?? Hmm.....some might complain(they dun even like Changi 5 min shuttle service to the budget terminal...:cry: ).....:lol: :jk:
Yeah lah...they want the plane to drop them off at the regular terminal and then go park at the budget "terminal" I suppose? :D

Anyway, I dont really mind if its KLIA or Subang becoming a budget hub.....which ever option gives me the cheapest rates to use and to reach the city wins for me! ;)

Okay I get what you are saying...that there would come a time where there is the need for another international airport after 2050...that doesn't sound bad nor wrong...after all like you said traffic would be tremendous by then...so I guess I have to agree with you on this...there is only so much you can expand...but since we are talking about 2050 here whereas its only 2004 now, its okay to not plan about having another international airport at the moment for our ability to handle traffic up to 2050 is pretty much secured...when it is nearer to the date lets say 2035 2040 the government knowingly will plan for another airport if necessary as according to the conditions then cause if we plan now and conditions change the plan will be wasted...planning for it now is not really feasible as like you said, conditions will change so there is no point...however, setting aside general pieces of land for other purposes for the future be it additional land for housing or infrastructure now is already done by Singapore as seen by the focus on building high rises when there is obviously still a lot of land left...Long-term planning (something I thought huaiwei was an advocate of) is where it all comes together. It might be in the best interests of Singapore on a competitive level to create a 2nd international airport to spread the load away from Changi.


But this airport most probably will be constructed because of the inability for Changi to continue to cope with the rising traffic, not because of emergencies etc. That should not be the main rationale behind having another airport...if so we have to build backups for absolutely everything in Singapore... Like I doubt Stansted etc was built as a emergency backup but rather to cope with the over congested Heathrow, evident in the huge flight cancellations by BA in recent days and months...so a second airport is good, but not now definitely...and having multiple airports should not be a main priority for authorities unless it is unavoidable...I doubt the US government and even the UK intended for there to be so many airports...I am okay and agree with the idea of a 2nd airport, but not now...unless it is required and there is no other choice in the future...More a combination of both for Changi. Changi won't be able to infinitely continue to expand and diversification of the aviation hub of Singapore would be quite attractive on alignments that do not disrupt the average Singaporean from his/her daily routine.

Stansted was actually considered as the backup for Heathrow - both for security (Stansted was being built in its modern form during the height of the IRA bombing on the mainland), access to the M11 corridor and overflow from Heathrow. Gatwick is currently in this position. However legal agreements mean that nothing (bar improvements/renovation) can be built until 2019 and thus Stansted will be the model that is being followed.

Now I'm not demanding, I'm only suggesting that a 2nd international airport might be viable for the future Singapore's need to remain competitive and agile.


But I strongly disagree with what you said about buying land etc...The political situation here is very different from that in the UK. Singapore is in a very sensitive region...so what works elsewhere might not work here...don't count fully on buying land from others just yet...there is still the main issue of religion here...seriously even 50 years down the road unless there are benefits to both sides, tremendous benefits, eg Muslims wouldn't want to see their territory being sold to a Chinese country and vice versa...these issues are just too sensitive...I wouldn't say that the UK isn't an un-sensitive region. We have just across the English Channel a centuries old enemy - France (joke ;)). But seriously - the UK has only just come out of a war where the Irish Republican Army took the fight to London and the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland is still technically a dormitory war zone. You might not be aware - but SwissRE would not have come to fruit had the famous Baltic Exchange not been decimated by the large IRA bomb in the City of London. These were the same people that killed anybody from unborn babies to horses. In today's world - al-Qaeda has yet to take the place of the IRA. But I believe that unfortunately something will get through.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/0000285538-006.jpg?size=67&uid={f0f65744-274d-4958-9e07-24a82ffb9700}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/0000285538-003.jpg?size=67&uid={208c77a9-52bc-4800-9fd0-4b71ac401a11}

Not exactly an un-sensitive region is it :(

But like I said - buying land is only one option. Land reclaimation is a far more viable option in my humble opinion.



huaiwei - Still awaiting your response :)

Yeah lah...they want the plane to drop them off at the regular terminal and then go park at the budget "terminal" I suppose? :D

Anyway, I dont really mind if its KLIA or Subang becoming a budget hub.....which ever option gives me the cheapest rates to use and to reach the city wins for me! ;)

Emm...in that case I think you might prefer Subang because it's closer to the city.......:yes:

You might also like the budget terminal at changi since it's 5 mins closer to the city......:lol:

Emm...in that case I think you might prefer Subang because it's closer to the city.......:yes:

You might also like the budget terminal at changi since it's 5 mins closer to the city......:lol:
...........................

Well, closer dosent always means collectively cheaper. I am still awaiting their "quotations"! :D

...........................

Well, closer dosent always means collectively cheaper. I am still awaiting their "quotations"! :D

Actually I was thinking in the context of taking a cab from Changi(compare with taking it from the budget terminal).....

You're waiting for the "quotation"?? I'm waiting for the terminal design....:lol:

yup.......I personally support KLIA to built a low-cost terminal.........but shd the Subang airport conversion took place......I would think that there shd be a seemless connection from KLIA to Subang ;)

Seems like it might be happening soon.....:eek:

Business Times - 22 Sep 2004

AirAsia may get wish of making Subang its hub

M'sia to decide by year-end on dedicating Subang to budget carriers

By VEN SREENIVASAN

(SINGAPORE) Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia may at long last get its wish to use Subang airport, near Kuala Lumpur, as its hub.

That is, if the Malaysian Cabinet approves a proposal to be presented by the Ministry of Transport.

New Straits Times yesterday reported that Transport Minister Chan Kong Choy has confirmed his ministry would present the proposal to the Cabinet for approval soon.

'We are still studying the proposal from all aspects as this would be a major decision and of national interest. We hope the decision could be made before the end of the year,' Mr Chan told reporters at a ground-breaking ceremony for AirAsia's RM11 million (S$4.9 million) simulator training complex in Sepang on Monday.

The minister was responding to questions about the proposal to turn the former Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah International Airport into a terminal for budget carriers, which have been mushrooming around the region.

The proposal would also consider maintaining budget carrier flights at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) in Sepang, using a purpose-built terminal there.

AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes was, however, quite clear about which airport he prefers.

'We have always made it clear that we prefer Subang to KLIA, just as we think Seletar is a better LCC airport than Changi,' he told BT when contacted in London, where he was on a business trip. 'It is simply a lower cost base for our operations.'

Subang is located just 15 km from the heart of the city and is well served by bus networks, compared to KLIA which is well over 80 km south of the city and takes well over an hour by road.

Although it is well served by dedicated train, buses and taxis, it costs four times as much for travellers to get from there to Kuala Lumpur as it would from Subang.

But some analysts do not see the government allowing Subang to be used as a low-cost carrier airport.

'While reopening Subang would be a big boost for AirAsia, it would be a definite negative for national carrier Malaysia Airlines (MAS),' said Shukor Yusoff of S&P MarketScope.

'All the more, given that MAS has been asked to do 'national service' on its domestic routes. I don't see how MAS' new chairman, Munir Majid, will take this lying down. But stranger things have been known to happen in Malaysia.'

Mr Munir is a well known veteran of the country's financial sector and was much respected as the head of the Malaysian Securities & Exchanges Commission.

KLIA, which was built at a cost of RM20 billion, is still underutilised following the 1998 financial crisis and last year's aviation slowdown, and currently caters to around 65 per cent of its full capacity of 25 million passengers a year.

But a rise in traffic this year - in tandem with the rapid economic recovery of the country - has prompted the government to consider expanding the airport terminal before it hits full capacity in two to three years time.

Mr Chan said the government had started discussions on the possible construction of a second satellite building at the KLIA to cater to the increase in the number of passengers at the airport.

'Hopefully, the second satellite building will be ready before the airport reaches the stage of handling 25 million passengers,' Mr Chan said.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sadly, even if Subang were to be open to LCC use, we still might not see direct flights between Changi and KL until they can finally take down that archaic aviation pact we have in place?

Sadly, even if Subang were to be open to LCC use, we still might not see direct flights between Changi and KL until they can finally take down that archaic aviation pact we have in place?

If they open up that sector and airfare becomes cheap, the tour bus business to KL will be seriously affected........

huaiwei - I draw your attention to post #138 of this thread for reply regarding the points that you made and I questioned............

huaiwei - I draw your attention to post #138 of this thread for reply regarding the points that you made and I questioned............
Aiyah....later can? I am too sleepy today lah! :D

Aiyah....later can? I am too sleepy today lah! :DI would have thought that just one hour short of taking a week to reply would have been enough time :?

I would have thought that just one hour short of taking a week to reply would have been enough time :?
yeah, but not everyone would choose to spend even one minute to talk to you, unless there is ample reason to do so?

today, it seems like you arent in a proper frame of mind to converse with me, so I shall abstain.

I don't want people to spend every one minute talking to me - I just want them to answer points that they put to me. A week has past since my last correspondance with yourself and I dunno if its down to the fact that you just "forgot" or that you didn't have a suitable reply to my oh so clever answers :yes:

Perhaps I am too unforgiving; such cruel irony :laugh:

I don't want people to spend every one minute talking to me - I just want them to answer points that they put to me. A week has past since my last correspondance with yourself and I dunno if its down to the fact that you just "forgot" or that you didn't have a suitable reply to my oh so clever answers :yes:

Perhaps I am too unforgiving; such cruel irony :laugh:
I believe I have enough self-confidence not to worry about being seen as having no "suitable reply to" your "oh so clever answers."

Meanwhile, are you blatantly looking to pick a fight with me?

ease up................gentlemen................... start afresh.....................

If I wanted a fight we would be meeting in neutral territory this very second!

However I do want reasonable debate where questions are answered rather than "waivered" away by un-reasonable replies that don't constitute a reasonable and educated debate.

But you must be so tired - I have waited for over a week for a response - I suppose I can wait a few more hours until the time zone is more favourable to yourself.

If I wanted a fight we would be meeting in neutral territory this very second!

However I do want reasonable debate where questions are answered rather than "waivered" away by un-reasonable replies that don't constitute a reasonable and educated debate.

But you must be so tired - I have waited for over a week for a response - I suppose I can wait a few more hours until the time zone is more favourable to yourself.
I respond according to when I deem it plausible to do so. And I choose to ignore when I find it appriopriate to do so too. Sometimes, ignoring certain kinds of people is still the best way forward.

I think Huaiwei had the liberty wether or not to answer you Nick. It is a bit annoying to see you pestering Huaiwei to answer. :ohno:

Aiya instead of pestering HW, why not pester CAAS for the design of the budget terminal?......:lol:

I respond according to when I deem it plausible to do so. And I choose to ignore when I find it appriopriate to do so too. Sometimes, ignoring certain kinds of people is still the best way forward.On this occasion I think it was because you took the approach that I was "immature" for proposing an idea which is all too possible (depending on a variety of issues and timelines that I have divulged in previous posts in this thread) - when you yourself posed another idea which currently isn't happening (refer back to <#138) referring to the amalgamation of all airports in London (no more immature than my proposal might I add). However rather than "laugh" and try to discredit my academic background, I took the logical approach to thus explain that just like with my Singapore idea that there were problems and untold dilemmas.



szehoong - Actually its of a mature nature to respond. You would take offence if I started bad-mouthing yourself would you not - he lost his liberty when he questioned by background and maturity? Infact its in response to Ed here who claimed me to be immature but fails to act mature when it comes to actually replying to defend his reason to come to this conclusion - so sad :ohno:

Unfortunately I also posted a question (post #138) that has not been answered (it was in the post that huaiwei negated), so could someone else please reply to it:


Why have the budget terminal isolated to the side of the airport and not totally connected with the other terminals? Is it going to eventually be connected up, or is to remain isolated like some bad child?

Why have the budget terminal isolated to the side of the airport and not totally connected with the other terminals? Is it going to eventually be connected up, or is to remain isolated like some bad child?
If this remains the only question you have for us, then dont you think it is already well answered, be it in text, or even in graphical form?

Look at the maps. Could you find a comparable space in the airport big enough to accomodate a terminal of the same size?

Sometimes I think we need to be isolated from the likes of you too. We wont provide even shuttle buses!

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 29 September 2004 1843 hrs

Qantas budget carrier Jetstar Asia to take off by year end
By Derek Cher, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Qantas Airways says its Singapore-based low-cost carrier will take to the skies by the end of this year.

The carrier, called Jetstar Asia, is expected to get its Air Operator's Certificate by mid-November.

Qantas has invested S$50 million for a 49 percent stake in the airline.

Investment firm Temasek Holdings has a 19 percent stake, while two Singapore businessmen own the rest -- Del Monte chairman Tony Chew with 21 percent and Boustead chairman FF Wong with 10 percent.

Qantas also says Temasek had acquired a three percent stake in Qantas when British Airways sold its 18.2 percent stake in the Australian carrier earlier this month.

Jetstar Asia will be the fourth budget carrier to operate out of Singapore.

It will start flying with four leased Airbus A320s to destinations within five hours of Singapore.

The airline plans to operate 20 aircraft within three years.

"There are three other airlines that have started before us. I am not sure it is always the best thing in the airline industry to be first off. As a matter of fact, I often think it is best to wait and see how everybody else destroys themselves and come in, maybe pick up the pieces. But we are very confident of the timing," Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said.

Jetstar Asia's intended take-off also comes as oil prices surge to record levels.

But Qantas says the budget carrier will not start with a fuel surcharge unless the situation worsens over the next two months.

Qantas also has no plans to raise its own fuel surcharge.

Even though Jetstar Asia isn't saying what its price structure will be, the airline is confident it has a very low cost base that will enable it to match the fares of its competitors.

Qantas expects Jetstar Asia to get some decent air traffic rights in the region.

It also envisages regional markets opening up, with the proliferation of low-cost carriers.

Qantas does not expect to inject more money into Jetstar Asia.

It says the combined S$100 million investment is sufficient for the airline to achieve profitability.

"I don't know where the other airlines will end up. But I can assure you that Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Australia will be around in three to four years' time," Mr Dixon said.
Qantas says it doesn't see Temasek holding stakes in rivals Singapore Airlines, SilkAir and Tiger Airways as a conflict of interest, since cross-shareholdings are common in the airline industry.

Jetstar Asia is now in talks with Singapore authorities on the possible use of its budget terminal. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

^
If Jetstar using the budget terminal, then there will be 3 airlines using the terminal once it's built.......Wonder if Valuair will join them eventually??

Makes no diff man. If the three airlines do indeed grow faster then anticipated, we might end up having to expand the terminal once its completed! :D

Makes no diff man. If the three airlines do indeed grow faster then anticipated, we might end up having to expand the terminal once its completed! :D

Emm.....I dun think there will be 2.7 million ppl using the terminal unless the 3 airlines really expand their routes at a really fast rate.......

But right now i just want them to show me the design......so long already......:rant::D

Emm.....I dun think there will be 2.7 million ppl using the terminal unless the 3 airlines really expand their routes at a really fast rate.......

But right now i just want them to show me the design......so long already......:rant::D
Muahaha....didnt their counterparts in Europe and the US grow THAT fast? Okok....I shall be realistic here. I know this region is far more tricky. :D

Why are you so impatient about the design?

Muahaha....didnt their counterparts in Europe and the US grow THAT fast? Okok....I shall be realistic here. I know this region is far more tricky. :D

Why are you so impatient about the design?

Haha....just want to know how simple and modern is the terminal.......also I'm a little tired of going to T1/2 all the time.....need some excitment there....:lol:

OCT 6, 2004
Budget terminal: 28 firms bid for job
Bids range from $23m to $45m; contract expected to be awarded by year end and terminal should be ready by 2006

By Goh Chin Lian

TWENTY-EIGHT local and foreign companies are vying to design and build Singapore's first passenger terminal for low-cost airlines.

The bids for the single-storey building start from $23 million, said a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS).

But a website for government tenders shows that most of the bids are between $30 million and $40 million.

Woh Hup, a Singapore company, had the highest: $45.18 million.

Other local companies to make bids include builders of condominiums, HDB flatsand offices but with no experience in airport terminals. They include Poh Lian Construction and Chiu Teng Construction.

Another local builder is SembCorp Engineers and Constructors, which built the $140-million extension of Changi Terminal 2.

The foreign companies include Bovis Lend Lease, which is headquartered in London, Hong Kong's Gammon Construction, Japan's Shimizu Corporation and China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co.

The tender, which closed on Sept 29, is expected to be awarded by the end of this year, said CAAS.

It also said the submissions will be evaluated on such qualitative criteria as track record, experience, design proposal and cost effectiveness.

The budget terminal, expected to be ready by early 2006, will be spartan compared to the two existing terminals at Changi and the $1.5-billion Terminal 3 being built.

It will not have aerobridges, VIP lounges, holding rooms for passengers, lifts, escalators or travellators.

Passengers on connecting flights at the other terminals will have to take their luggage with them when travelling to the low-cost terminal on a shuttle bus. They will also have to walk out in the open to their plane.

However, in its statement, CAAS said travellers can find services such as money changers, duty-free shopping, food and beverage as well as ramps for the less mobile.

The terminal will initially have six aircraft parking bays, with Tiger Airways the only airline that has said it would use the terminal.

Sited at Changi next to the Singapore Airport Terminal Services In-flight Catering Centre 1, the building will be able to handle up to 2.7 million passengers a year.

Changi's current Terminal 1 can handle 21 million and Terminal 2, 23 million, with the upcoming Terminal 3 able to handle 20 million.

Passengers could pay $18 or less in airport taxes at the low-cost carrier terminal, compared to $21 at the existing terminals.

Airlines that use it could pay about 20 per cent less.

CAAS had said before that passenger and airline charges will not be able to recover all the money spent on the terminal. Much of it will have to come from the sale of duty-free goods as well as food and beverage.

Although low-cost carrier passengers are said to be unlikely to spend 'as much on shopping and eating at the airport compared to passengers of regular airlines', CAAS said it was 'prepared to take a calculated risk'.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

OCT 6, 2004
Budget terminal: 28 firms bid for job
Bids range from $23m to $45m; contract expected to be awarded by year end and terminal should be ready by 2006

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Finally some news on the terminal.......:banana::D

Finally some news on the terminal.......:banana::D
Yeah, and now that you might have to wait for them to evaluate 28 designs? :D

Yeah, and now that you might have to wait for them to evaluate 28 designs? :D

Hopefully we'll get to see the 28 designs.......:D

Do you think they'll show it??

Hopefully we'll get to see the 28 designs.......:D

Do you think they'll show it??
In all honesty...no. :D Its not a design competition, so they arent obliged to show them unless they wish to?

And I do wish its not a local government-linked company getting the job. Somehow I think they are more likely to create concrete boxes! :lol:

In all honesty...no. :D Its not a design competition, so they arent obliged to show them unless they wish to?

And I do wish its not a local government-linked company getting the job. Somehow I think they are more likely to create concrete boxes! :lol:

Maybe they'll create a concrete box with spikes......:lol:

Maybe a glassy box also??:D

I am not too confident about their design abilities I am afraid. It might just look like another typical bus interchange, except that its true that our interchanges do look better then most in other parts of the world of coz? :D

I am not too confident about their design abilities I am afraid. It might just look like another typical bus interchange, except that its true that our interchanges do look better then most in other parts of the world of coz? :D

Emm.....in that case it should at least look like an upgraded version of sengkang interchange........:yes:

Actually I think they are focusing more the cost rather than the design.....so I really don't expect much........

Haha...just remember that Terminal 3 is actually designed by CPG, so what better can we expext? :D

Haha...just remember that Terminal 3 is actually designed by CPG, so what better can we expext? :D

Aiyoh.....but T3 is not that bad what........:lol:

Better keep foster out of this, if not it will be a terminal with a saucer......:lol:

Saucer nice what...with saucer Changi Airport can then truly be an international interstellar gateway to the world, where humans & aliens all converge, transiting and arriving/departing in harmony.

Saucer nice what...with saucer Changi Airport can then truly be an international interstellar gateway to the world, where humans & aliens all converge, transiting and arriving/departing in harmony.
................

Well, they have all chosen to converge midway to the airport at Expo Station, so I think they are better off staying where they should go to! :D

Saucer nice what...with saucer Changi Airport can then truly be an international interstellar gateway to the world, where humans & aliens all converge, transiting and arriving/departing in harmony.

Emm.....good in a way lah.....but at least design a nice saucer loh.......:lol:

Emm.....good in a way lah.....but at least design a nice saucer loh.......:lol:
Oh please..........

Construction of this terminal starts by the end of this year right? Wont that give them just 2 months left in the design phrase?

Oh please..........

Construction of this terminal starts by the end of this year right? Wont that give them just 2 months left in the design phrase?

I supposed so......Given the short time frame, I don't think we could expect much....... :cry: :lol:

But then, anything could happen..........

If this remains the only question you have for us, then dont you think it is already well answered, be it in text, or even in graphical form?

Look at the maps. Could you find a comparable space in the airport big enough to accomodate a terminal of the same size?

Sometimes I think we need to be isolated from the likes of you too. We wont provide even shuttle buses!Unfortunately that took you a long amount of time to reply to and has not been answered in any appropiate detail in either a graphical or text manner.

However I will aid you or someone else to help answer this question by using your own lovely detailed map to try and actually get some answers if someone would be so gracious :yes:

http://img27.exs.cx/img27/5708/Aviation2.jpg

Now as we can all see from the map edited by huaiwei it shows where the budget terminal will be in relation to the rest of Changi. Now its clearly visible as being "dislocated" away from the rest of the passenger terminal super-structure. Now what huaiwei couldn't come to terms with (but maybe someone else could) is why not build the budget terminal as to be a part of the terminal super-structure???

There is clearly not a body of water, or a runway in the way to stop the "budget" terminal from not being attached or connected or next door to say the new T3 or T2. Cause all I am thinking about is connectivity and it just seems rather inadequate and odd to not have them all close together.

Now unless of course there is some idiotic problem like a nuclear waste depot next to the new T3 and T2 which limits construction..... or maybe there is something as straight forward as that quite possibly the reason that it is so detached is because that there maybe plans to eventually connect it up with several more terminals in the next few decades?

Other airports however manage to grow but at the same time accomodate budget carriers (eg London Gatwick) within the terminal super-structure.

Regarding your last point.....thankfully you represent a minority in Singapore, not the Singapore Tourist Board and neither the Changi Airport Authorities!

Muahahaa......we have reached post #187, and you still have not even seen anyone mentioning anything with regards to its placement, if not directly to you, then mentioned somewhere else in this thread?

You damn sure we did not answer you on that one, btw? Very freaking sure? ;)

Connectivity problem again?? Does a 5 mins bus ride to connect the terminals count as connectivity??.........

Or is it more worthwhile to shift the CAAS kitchen, the SAT flight kitchen and the airport police station merely for the sake of "connectivity"??

Yep sure.


Well I'm thinking about the passenger here and not the apron services. Afterall what was on the site of where T3 is going up? Would you be happy having to exit the terminal rather than stay within the terminal and transfer to other flights? Connectivity is linked into accessibility and it doesn't look like that from here.

Yep sure.


Well I'm thinking about the passenger here and not the apron services. Afterall what was on the site of where T3 is going up? Would you be happy having to exit the terminal rather than stay within the terminal and transfer to other flights? Connectivity is linked into accessibility and it doesn't look like that from here.
There was nothing on the site of Terminal 3 except for an open parking apron. It was an obvious pre-allocated site. I would have tot less ignorance will aid alot in the discussion here.

The budget terminal, on the other hand, was actually never conceptualised before, only coming into fruitation in recent years in response to changing aviation climates. That is just how fast the authorities are willing to bend over backwards to remain competitive. Naturally, hence, they have to find the closest major piece of undeveloped land for the terminal.

And I do not think that includes destroying entire supporting infrastructures just for the terminal to be located "right beside" the existing stations.

Connectivity problem again?? Does a 5 mins bus ride to connect the terminals count as connectivity??.........

Or is it more worthwhile to shift the CAAS kitchen, the SAT flight kitchen and the airport police station merely for the sake of "connectivity"??
Apparantly not to him. Perhaps his experiences in taking buses in London are too traumatising for him to contemplate ever taking any in the impoverished far east.....;)

If he ever comes here again, and needs to get from Terminal 1 to 2, he would probably choose to walk from one to the other. Taking the skytrain is not an option too, right, for it does involve a short transfer too?

Apparantly not to him. Perhaps his experiences in taking buses in London are too traumatising for him to contemplate ever taking any in the impoverished far east.....;)

If he ever comes here again, and needs to get from Terminal 1 to 2, he would probably choose to walk from one to the other. Taking the skytrain is not an option too, right, for it does involve a short transfer too?

I won't take that 15 mins walk when there is a 3 mins train ride........:yes:

I won't take that 15 mins walk when there is a 3 mins train ride........:yes:

I remembering reading ''The Skytrain to Terminal 1 will take approximately 80 seconds'' on the LED on the platform screen door or something like that...haha...just being really specific here...

I remembering reading ''The Skytrain to Terminal 1 will take approximately 80 seconds'' on the LED on the platform screen door or something like that...haha...just being really specific here...

That fast?? :eek:

Maybe I should time it, next time i take the skytrain......

I remembering reading ''The Skytrain to Terminal 1 will take approximately 80 seconds'' on the LED on the platform screen door or something like that...haha...just being really specific here...
80 seconds to what?

That fast?? :eek:

Maybe I should time it, next time i take the skytrain......

Haha so free again ah... It feels like 80 seconds...the travelling part, not the stationary part.

80 Seconds Till The SkyTrain blows up...lame...

Haha so free again ah... It feels like 80 seconds...the travelling part, not the stationary part.

80 Seconds Till The SkyTrain blows up...lame...

Free?? where got?? The government didn't pay me to time the skytrain loh.....:lol: :jk:

Oh..finally I know what you guys are talking about. :lol:

I dont remember hearing that annoucement in the train thou?

That was not an announcment. That was the message that was displayed on the LEDs on the Platform Screen Doors.

As for the in train announcements, just like MRT & LRT announcements, these announcements have always been there...most of the time... Sometimes, the Skytrain programming probably gets screwed up and the announcement does not come up.

I dont seem to notice them until now thou. Sigh....wonder what I have been staring at! :D

I dont seem to notice them until now thou. Sigh....wonder what I have been staring at! :D

Too many "distractions" outside the train?? :D

Too many "distractions" outside the train?? :D
Erm...admittedly you might be right. I am looking more towards rushing to grap that coverted seat. :D

That was not an announcment. That was the message that was displayed on the LEDs on the Platform Screen Doors.

As for the in train announcements, just like MRT & LRT announcements, these announcements have always been there...most of the time... Sometimes, the Skytrain programming probably gets screwed up and the announcement does not come up.

The annoucement use now is...."we are now heading for Terminal 1/2" then when the train arrive.....they'll annouce "welcome to Terminal 1/2"......

The sight and sounds of changi airport........:yes:

Wonder what kind of annoucement are they going to use for the new PMS??

Hmm......actually I am kinda wondering if they should consider extending the rail system to the budget terminal...or is that too much to ask?

Hmm......actually I am kinda wondering if they should consider extending the rail system to the budget terminal...or is that too much to ask?

Not really.......I suspect they are testing a cheaper option first.......if the budget hub thing flourish(when there are a lot of passengers), I suppose they'll react........:yes:

Hmm......actually I am kinda wondering if they should consider extending the rail system to the budget terminal...or is that too much to ask?

Well from what I have read from an official source, the new PMS system has been designed to potentially be extended to a future T4. Nothing said about an extension to the budget terminal (because when that plan was drafted up and put in place, no one knew what was a budget terminal).

Anyways I hope there will not be a terminal 4. By the time T3's annual usage reaches its max (15 million ppa by Changi's standards, not 20 mppa design standards) in 2020 or so, CAAS should start thinking of consolidating terminals. Or else we will face the same problem as Heathrow. Passengers hate having too many terminals in an airport, affects their navigation ability and efficiency of airport operations. Since T4 will most likely be built in a whole new stretch of land in the first place, might as well build a large one (like building a new airport).

Hm.....I would think they might be forced to extend the rail system to the budget terminal of passenger numbers really go up too. The costs of operating a single rail system is better spread out that way actually.

Anyway, a multi-terminal operation is actually ok, so long that navigation is not a major issue. Most of thse airports like Heathrow have lots of problems, because they suck to begin with. :D

Hm.....I would think they might be forced to extend the rail system to the budget terminal of passenger numbers really go up too. The costs of operating a single rail system is better spread out that way actually.

Anyway, a multi-terminal operation is actually ok, so long that navigation is not a major issue. Most of thse airports like Heathrow have lots of problems, because they suck to begin with. :D

Ya. 3 or 4 maybe. But I wouldnt want an airport with 5 terminals. It just doesn't feel right.

Heathrow sucks that much? Read so many sucky stories of it from the press. Even my friend who went to London last year complained that upon arriving she felt the suckiness of the terminal already.

But the interiors look okay and nice. Perhaps its just bad service.

Heathrow sucks that much? Read so many sucky stories of it from the press. Even my friend who went to London last year complained that upon arriving she felt the suckiness of the terminal already.

But the interiors look okay and nice. Perhaps its just bad service.
I suppose there is more then meets the eye. Goes to show tt u cant build a super new and good terminal, and expect things to be all nice and good overnight.

I suppose there is more then meets the eye. Goes to show tt u cant build a super new and good terminal, and expect things to be all nice and good overnight.

But such mentalities are so common nowaday......see how many new airports there are in asia.........:eek:

And every single new airport wants to be a hub of some kind, I suppose as a justification for spending millions of taxpayer's money? ;)

And every single new airport wants to be a hub of some kind, I suppose as a justification for spending millions of taxpayer's money? ;)

Haha......hub of some kind is still tolerable......but please don't use that destination in its own thingy......it's getting far too repetitive....... :bash:

Haha......hub of some kind is still tolerable......but please don't use that destination in its own thingy......it's getting far too repetitive....... :bash:
:rofl:

Whatever the case, I doubt this budget terminal can lay claim to that lah. ;) I would be expecting them to release the design details soon?

:rofl:

Whatever the case, I doubt this budget terminal can lay claim to that lah. ;) I would be expecting them to release the design details soon?

Yes.....that would be something to watch out for....:yes:

Scarly they released the details next week?? :eek:

And every single new airport wants to be a hub of some kind, I suppose as a justification for spending millions of taxpayer's money? ;)

Yah......but how many new airports have actually become a hub in their own right?? ;)

Yah......but how many new airports have actually become a hub in their own right?? ;)
With all due respect..when Incheon keep saying they want to be the hub of NE Asia, I was like thinking...yeah....if NE Asia only comprises of Korea that is. :D

With all due respect..when Incheon keep saying they want to be the hub of NE Asia, I was like thinking...yeah....if NE Asia only comprises of Korea that is. :D

Haha......now airports in SE asia also got the same thinking lah......:lol:

Haha......now airports in SE asia also got the same thinking lah......:lol:
Aiyah.....now got 3 hub wannabes in SEA, and they are like in one chain so close together. Wait long long man! :D

Heathrow sucks that much? Read so many sucky stories of it from the press. Even my friend who went to London last year complained that upon arriving she felt the suckiness of the terminal already.

But the interiors look okay and nice. Perhaps its just bad service.

My experience with Heathrow has been with their Terminal 3 and 2.

I notice that the check-in area for T3 is always very congested with snaking lines and all, sometimes with inadequate demarcations for different flights cos the queues snake like mad. Nevertheless once you are in the waiting lounge, it is quite alright with lots to do, they recently renovated that bit.

But the arrival hall at T3 is bleak I must add, and the arrival of 4 747 flights around the same time usually mean long waits at immigration (admittedly they are quite thorough)

I havent had bad service though, its more a 'flow' problem..perhaps the older terminals handling short haul flights might be really bad...

Well as we can see...the physical aspects of the terminals dosent always mean much. Sure, they will look presentable enough, but this is apparantly not enough. ;)

Changi is a clear example of an airline placing services over physical asthetics!

for me, speed and comfort are more important than exterior shell of an airport, and for most passengers I believe...

no matter how nice the design of an airport is, if it cannot serve passengers efficiently, its a failure :cool:

for me, speed and comfort are more important than exterior shell of an airport, and for most passengers I believe...

no matter how nice the design of an airport is, if it cannot serve passengers efficiently, its a failure :cool:

I agree.......:yes:

With T3, would we see the "fatal" combination of software and hareware?? :lol:

Muahaha! :D

I had a really strange dream a few days ago. I dreamt that there is a new terminal with a small runway, which on reflection now is quite near to the planned location of the budget terminal. But the small runway...hahaha....now thats so funny to think of it now! :D

Muahaha! :D

I had a really strange dream a few days ago. I dreamt that there is a new terminal with a small runway, which on reflection now is quite near to the planned location of the budget terminal. But the small runway...hahaha....now thats so funny to think of it now! :D

Maybe the seletar runway went "inside" your dreams?? :lol:

Maybe the seletar runway went "inside" your dreams?? :lol:
Haha...maybe lah...but its really strange why I dreamt it up, and why I remembered it! :D In fact, that tiny runway is even diagonal to the existing runways!

for me, speed and comfort are more important than exterior shell of an airport, and for most passengers I believe...

no matter how nice the design of an airport is, if it cannot serve passengers efficiently, its a failure :cool:

Ultimately, what makes an airport stands out from the rest, is not mere aesthetics......it's the service and efficiency......:yes:

Ultimately, what makes an airport stands out from the rest, is not mere aesthetics......it's the service and efficiency......:yes:
But what better way to pull oneself far far away from the competition by having BOTH spectacular architecture and unrivalled service? :D

Still awaiting for news on the new budget terminal design thou. I really hope it wont be "too" spatan! ;)

Still awaiting for news on the new budget terminal design thou. I really hope it wont be "too" spatan! ;)

2004 Releases
5 Oct 2004

28 Companies submit Bids for Design and Build Tender of Singapore's Low Cost Terminal

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has received bids from 28 companies for the tender to design and build a low cost terminal at Singapore Changi Airport. The bids submitted came in from S$23 million upwards. CAAS will now proceed to evaluate the bids. The submissions will be evaluated on qualitative criteria such as track records, experience, design proposal and cost effectiveness.

The design and build tender was called end July 2004, after CAAS announced the decision to proceed with the construction of the low cost terminal following Tiger Airways' commitment to use it. The tender, which closed on 29 September 2004, is expected to be awarded by the end of this year.

The tender called for bidders to design and build a single-storey passenger terminal building to serve low cost carriers (LCCs). CAAS had asked for the design to be simple, modern and functional, but the overall look of the terminal should be cheerful and interesting. In terms of layout, passengers should be able to move around and clear travel processes with ease. Another requirement is that the terminal should be durable and easy to maintain, while allowing for future expansion. CAAS will now evaluate the bids submitted.

The new low cost terminal at Changi Airport is scheduled to be ready in early 2006. While the low cost terminal is designed to meet the needs of LCCs, the needs of travellers have not been forgotten. Travellers can find services such as money changers, duty-free shopping, food & beverage outlets, and a shuttle bus service that will connect them to the existing terminals. There will also be ramps to make it easier for the less mobile travellers to move about.

The low cost terminal is part of CAAS' efforts to grow Singapore's status as an aviation hub by facilitating the operations of all airlines in Singapore, including the LCCs. Changi Airport is now served by 73 airlines with more than 3,500 flights to over 160 cities in more than 50 countries.

http://www.changi.airport.com.sg/changi/press_release_content.jsp?DYNAMIC_FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9853823208128581&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10135298184839453&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302024562&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181068&bmUID=1103877168484

Erm..it says the tender will be awarded at the end of this year. The last time I checked, the end of this year has about 30 hours left? :D

Erm..it says the tender will be awarded at the end of this year. The last time I checked, the end of this year has about 30 hours left? :D

Scarly you'll hear the news tomorrow?? :eek:

Scarly you'll hear the news tomorrow?? :eek:
Muahaha.....fine...we shall see. :D

Muahaha.....fine...we shall see. :D

Hmm....until now also no news?? I wonder if there's any wrong with the 28 design?? :?

Hahaah...sekali all cannot make it how? :D

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2005-01-15/front_caas.jpg
NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL: The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has awarded a S$24.7 million contract to Sanchoon Builders to design and build the low cost terminal at Singapore Changi Airport. Work is expected to start in the first quarter of 2005 and be completed in early 2006. -- CAAS

Jan 15, 2005
Sanchoon Builders to construct S'pore's low cost airport terminal

SINGAPORE - The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has awarded a S$24.7 million contract to Sanchoon Builders Pte Ltd to design and build the low cost terminal at Singapore Changi Airport.

Sanchoon Builders is expected to start construction work in the first quarter of 2005 and completion is expected in early 2006.

The low cost terminal will have an initial passenger handling capacity of 2.7 million passengers a year.

There is scope for further expansion should more carriers want to use the terminal.

The low cost terminal is made up of two adjacent single-storey buildings connected via link ways.

This design facilitates seamless passenger flow in the single storey building, as arrival and departure procedures will be processed in separate blocks. Aside from the low cost terminal, other associated works will be carried out at the low cost terminal site, including building an open-air car park, taxiway and aircraft parking stands.

The total cost for the low cost terminal and the related works is expected to be about S$45 million.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Hmm...and I believe you said its ugly? :D I wasent expecting anything spectacular myself! ;)

Hmm...and I believe you said its ugly? :D I wasent expecting anything spectacular myself! ;)

Emm.....not ugly.....just uninspiring....... :bash:

Hopefully the real thing looks better.......:yes:

Layout of the budget terminal(lianhe zaobao, 16/1/05):

http://img141.exs.cx/img141/8219/dscn392615bc.jpg

On the left is the arrival hall which will be linked to the departure hall(on the right) by a walkway. On the top is a carpark.

I think the design is rather cute... it looks like a supermarket :D

Looks better than what I would imagine. Have reservations on the colour scheme though.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2005-01-15/front_caas.jpg
Bit too colourful. :)

maybe its just the artist impression, other than that it looks relatively simple

The shape is quite nice though.

look cool:)

raffie,get the digicam ready when u/c begins:)

The shape is quite nice though.
Shape? You refering to the patterns on the walls, or the terminal layout? The layout is as boring as a box, which it is! :D

Shape? You refering to the patterns on the walls, or the terminal layout? The layout is as boring as a box, which it is! :D

Emm....not totally boxy it seems.......at least got some "slope" on the roof.......:lol:

Emm....not totally boxy it seems.......at least got some "slope" on the roof.......:lol:
Oh...didnt realise it is actually a sloping roof...I tot its just the perspective!

I wonder how the other 27 design look like?? I have a strong feeling that this is chosen because it looks ok(subject to personal preference though) and relatively cheap.......:yes:

I wonder how the other 27 design look like?? I have a strong feeling that this is chosen because it looks ok(subject to personal preference though) and relatively cheap.......:yes:
Well, I wonder if they are going to release the design details for the over submittions at all man. What can possibily be lousier then this one? :lol: