KK Lee 5 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 The DCA needs to modernise and maintain it's ATC facility. Perhaps, the DCA should first consider modernising and updating its Air Traffic Management System abd build a new ATC management facility at KLIA adjacent the existing control tower. The older centre perhaps transformed into an ATC training school for both AirForce and DCA controllers. So much can be done - it really just needs to be "planned" THOROUGHLY first and not on a whim and a fancy. ATC is not a high profile nor glory project to show off, is low in the cabinet priority list to purchase. However, one sure way for ATC to have their facility upgraded is for the equipment supplier to appoint or partner someone who walks in the corridor of power e.g. Mdm Treasurer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kandiah k 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Its such a shame that the airport plan has been approved, another blow to the Malaysian aviation and the hopes of KUL becoming a hub for anything at all. Its like a market place now with 2 airports, like really 2 different airport at 10km apart, now where in the world can we find that but good old Malaysia !! I really thought that we are heading somewhere with KLIA and AK and MH but little did anyone expect KLIA East @ Labu. I guess Selangor is no longer important to Kuala Lumpur. Negri Sembilan is the new Selangor !!! All for the benefit of the clowns !! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
V Wong 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Read this on TF's take on this issue : http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Mon...icle/index_html Sometimes when one spins, it gets so convincing at some point that it becomes nothing but the 'whole truth' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jani 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 I read some 3/4 of it but then I cannot continue. Its almost too much to handle. Its so easy to understand how all that talk will fool someone. Clearly now this is not a game of his, he's serious about the whole thing. I am genuinely sad, haha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sharil Abdul Rahman 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 WHat i see here is two sides selfishly trying to push their weight around. AirAsia wants everything in their view - location, ramp space etc etc. MAHB wants proits every time. What i dont understand is why cant MAHB just get in with the second satellite building? And to keep with the low cost budget - make it a bus-only terminal with only gates - a little more elaborate than what they have in LCCT now. If i am projecting this correct, they can easily have at least 20 aircraft space with the cross building config. Maybe more if they follow Bristol Airport's design. The underlying thing here is MAHB did not expect cheap airlines to mushroom this quickly. Sure they WERE planning for the future, but they expected AirAsia's growth will be 1/2 the speed of it is now. But then, IF AirAsia manages to get their own terminal - what happens when there is a slump? Everything will go down eventually. Then we will have an airport that is, well, like KLIA. Also TF's view in NST is agreeable - but not all of it. I agree that the connectivity between the airports in the KL area - KUL & SZB - sucks. Then airasia should instead focus in getting connectivity - with sime darby they can always propose a railway in KLIA or a bus service between the MTB and the LCCT. A question - TF said Airasia will have >50 planes by 2014. will ALL of the planes be on the ground at the same time in the LCCT? if it is, then the high number of parking bays will be expected. But then if that is the case - doesnt that mean that no planes are flying and the airline is bust? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KK Lee 5 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 There is no doubt, there is ample land and resources for MAHB to build a new LCCT at KUL for AK. However, MAHB is not responding to AK (i.e. customer) need. AK should and have every right to find a solution to their bottle neck. Instead of questioning AK, believe we should be questioning MAHB why is not responding to AK need? AK is a success story. It is not a surprise that foreign countries are offering AK to be relocated if neither KUL or Labu can meet its requirement. Since MAHB is adamant, it is better for AK to move to Labu than to another country. Most LCC aircraft except those on red eye flight returned to base at night. Hence, AK do need many parking bay at night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azri M. 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Also TF's view in NST is agreeable - but not all of it. I agree that the connectivity between the airports in the KL area - KUL & SZB - sucks. Then airasia should instead focus in getting connectivity - with sime darby they can always propose a railway in KLIA or a bus service between the MTB and the LCCT. Can airasia do that? It is in MAHB's site and airasia cannot meddle with MAHB's operation. They can advise MAHB to enhance the connectivity but they can't certainly deal it with their own hand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricD 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 I believe, the ATC for the proposed KLIA East will be done by the KLIA itself. 10 KM difference does not need another ATC. Avalon Airport here in Victoria is controlled by Melbourne Airport ATC which is situated 60 KM away. It can be done. Avalon YMAV is not controlled by Melbourne Airport ATC. It's a CTAF ® area. It still has Class C boundries but Class C airspace is only activated by NOTAM for special occasion i.e Avalon Airshow. When Charlie airspace is not in use, it's classified as Class G uncontrolled. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kandiah k 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 I think what AK can do now is to start a shuttle between the terminals and have it at a higher frequency and make sure that it is more reliable than the current rubbish service offered by AIRPORT LINER. The AIRPORT LINER is pure rubbish because they dont have a dedicated bus plying that route. The route actually runs through KLIA and LCCT to Sepang and other surrounding areas. They are supposed to run at an interval of 20 minutes but I have tried taking the bus and I have had to wait for at least 90 minutes for the bus to arrive for a journey that takes less then 20 minutes by bus. So AK will do well with the shuttle between the MTB and LCCT for now. Maybe start another company called AIRBUS on top of the SKYBUS that plies the KL SENTRAL - LCCT route. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KK Lee 5 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Interesting to note; According to TF; while Sime Darby/AK Labu airport will cost RM1.5 billion and MAHB new LCCT is going to cost RM2.9 billion. Ever wonder why operating cost at KUL is high? Not easy for foreign airline to breakeven. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timothy 1 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 I for one support this new "KLIA East" AirAsia is among a new breed of companies, much like nuffang/ google who are dynamic and places profit 1st and protocol 2nd. I'm not sure how everyone else will feel about this, but at least it will get the job done. fast. MAHB should focus on attracting foreign airlines. but they can't even satisfy local customers. So many "plans" of theirs are long overdue. Remember when they announced that all airports within M'sia will have free wifi way back in 07? Even KLIA as a "designated hub" still dosent have acceptable wifi speeds. why do something if you can't do it properly? It's petty of me to take wifi as an example, but it's 1 of many unfulfilled promises by MAHB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kee Hooi Yen 0 Report post Posted January 12, 2009 Is KLIA owned by MAHB ? or it is owned by the government and managed by MAHB ? If it is the latter, can the government make the airport management contract renewable, say every 3 or 5 years ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KK Lee 5 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 Is KLIA owned by MAHB ? or it is owned by the government and managed by MAHB ? If it is the latter, can the government make the airport management contract renewable, say every 3 or 5 years ? KLIA is leased to MAHB for 60+ years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azri M. 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Have you checked the new infoweb on KLIA East, created on airasia site? They are really serious on this. I'm posting some figures and pictures for us to discuss. Location: Artist impression: Simple and compact terminal layout design with a total of 920,000 sq ft Upper level is reserved for departures with an area of 420,000 sq ft Lower level is reserved for arrivals with an area of 500,000 sq ft Concourses optimizes efficiency Single level for cost effectiveness Aircraft parking on both sides of the concourses Reduces walking distances and overall concourse length Straight concourses allow optimized aircraft operations Facts and figures: Golden Triangle to KLIA 78 km Golden Triangle to KLIA-East 50 km ERL to KLIA 28 minutes ERL to KLIA-East 31 minutes (estimate) KL Komuter to KLIA-East 40 minutes (estimate) Seremban Komuter to KLIA-East 13 minutes KLIA Main Terminal to LCCT 18 km KLIA Main Terminal to KLIA-East 22 km It looks good and how would I say, very efficient looking building, seems well thought. The building reminds me of the Senai Airport. By the look at the terminal, it seems that passengers will walk no longer need to walk outside all the way to get to the plane (only a very short walk out). Connectivity looks promising as well. What do you think? I still like to see the LCCT next to MTB, but I do not trust much of MAHB's plan compared to this. Pic and facts from :http://www.airasia.com/site/my/en/pageWith...aed400-76e73d00 Edited January 13, 2009 by Azri M. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 All that, for only rm1,600M ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Azizul Ramli 2 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 Artist impression: This rendering looks like as if the terminal is located right opposite the MTB. Are you sure this is the rendering for the Labu Airport because the location is right on the site where MAHB want to build their pre-revised 2014 completion LCCT, i.e. right opposite the MTB. And just look at how long the provision of the extension rail lines of KLIA Express and KTM Komuter to get to the Labu Airport, which is going to be built/funded privately by AirAsia and their investors. Even KUL is not being linked to a dedicated KTM Komuter rail line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azri M. 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) This rendering looks like as if the terminal is located right opposite the MTB. Are you sure this is the rendering for the Labu Airport because the location is right on the site where MAHB want to build their pre-revised 2014 completion LCCT, i.e. right opposite the MTB. I think it is incorrectly superimposed as the site seems to have another runway opposite to the terminal. If it were the MAHB terminal, there wont be a runway perpendicular to the current runways. Another look at the Airasia terminal : Again, courtesy of :http://www.airasia.com/site/my/en/pageWith...aed400-76e73d00 Edited January 13, 2009 by Azri M. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jani 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 Man if they just build it opposite the MTB, kan senang!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
klampertz 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 I think it is incorrectly superimposed as the site seems to have another runway opposite to the terminal. If it were the MAHB terminal, there wont be a runway perpendicular to the current runways. Another look at the Airasia terminal : Again, courtesy of :http://www.airasia.com/site/my/en/pageWith...aed400-76e73d00 dude...i think you're confused...so stop embarrassing yourself Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azri M. 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) dude...i think you're confused...so stop embarrassing yourself Dude, I am not confused, go read it urself lah Edited January 13, 2009 by Azri M. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mushrif A 3 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 Wrt the terminal images, AK was just being lazy and copied the image of the proposed permanent LCCT@KLIA (which was supposed to be located across from the current MTB) and transplanted it as the Labu terminal. But what about the new proposal of the permanent LCCT@KLIA to the left of rwy 32L? AK is again being economical with the truth. And, it shouldn't call the new terminal "Rakyat's" after AK mess up FAX/ RAS big time. By using the word "Rakyat", when it's really just about "me, me and me" - it gives the impression of another con job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 Wrt the terminal images, AK was just being lazy and copied the image of the proposed permanent LCCT@KLIA (which was supposed to be located across from the current MTB) and transplanted it as the Labu terminal. Hah - caught red handed ! Anyone noticed the supposed 'runway' at left of rendering looks super duper mega wide ?! Man, the asphalt and concrete necessary would be mind boggling ! Another give-away would be the absence of 'aerobridges' in the published renderings but promised by the AK/Sime Darby pakatan as an 'improvement' over current LCCT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nik H. 3 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 Hah - caught red handed ! Anyone noticed the supposed 'runway' at left of rendering looks super duper mega wide ?! Man, the asphalt and concrete necessary would be mind boggling ! Another give-away would be the absence of 'aerobridges' in the published renderings but promised by the AK/Sime Darby pakatan as an 'improvement' over current LCCT Maybe KLIA East runways are designed super wide for simultaneous departures for cost savings..... BC, the improvement may be the shorter walking distance from the terminal door to the aircraft door. Face it, shortening walking distance of 10 feet can be spun as an improvement, and that is not totally wrong. I mean 10 feet x 140 pax x 20 flights n 40 gates = 112,000 feet walking distance saved. Per Day. Multiply that by 365 for annual savings. Now convert that into calories saved, the lesser amount of shoe soles wear and tear, eventually link that into carbon deposits reduction ( cue credit for the environment ).....i can think of lots more related savings...... that can be presented if one has great verbal articulation, a nice PPT presentation, and to a friendly admiring audience....... Hah - caught red handed ! Anyone noticed the supposed 'runway' at left of rendering looks super duper mega wide ?! Man, the asphalt and concrete necessary would be mind boggling ! Another give-away would be the absence of 'aerobridges' in the published renderings but promised by the AK/Sime Darby pakatan as an 'improvement' over current LCCT Maybe KLIA East runways are designed super wide for simultaneous departures for cost savings..... BC, the improvement may be the shorter walking distance from the terminal door to the aircraft door. Face it, shortening walking distance of 10 feet can be spun as an improvement, and that is not totally wrong. I mean 10 feet x 140 pax x 20 flights n 40 gates = 112,000 feet walking distance saved. Per Day. Multiply that by 365 for annual savings. Now convert that into calories saved, the lesser amount of shoe soles wear and tear, eventually link that into carbon deposits reduction ( cue credit for the environment ).....i can think of lots more related savings...... that can be presented if one has great verbal articulation, a nice PPT presentation, and to a friendly admiring audience....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 And they never head hunted you for spinmaster (whoops, I meant PR directorship) ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nik H. 3 Report post Posted January 13, 2009 And they never head hunted you for spinmaster (whoops, I meant PR directorship) ? I am not 'low cost'...... hence cannot fit into the business model. Remember 'Good not Cheap, Cheap not Good'..............? Cheers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites