'KLIA East @ Labu’

[Mushrif A 3]

And talking about spins and spinning, does anybody else notice the (mis)use of the term "terminal" in headlines or titles, when they are really talking about a whole new airport? I think this is part of "managing" public perception...i.e. no worries, this is just a small venture..."just" a terminal...i.e. four walls and a roof.

 

And as part of managing public perception, the use of the tagline that it is the "rakyat's" terminal...AK or Tony should just be honest...the whole thing is purely for and driven by commercial interests. Don't try to hide behind the RAKYAT label after messing up the rural air services (remember FAX?) which was for the rakyat, but done half-heartedly. Now, I'm feeling even more annoyed with the whole thing, especially now that AK is hiding behind the skirt/baju kurung of rakyat.

 

In my opinion, I think MAHB also has to shoulder the blame for being non-proactive to the needs of its biggest customer. With my limited interaction with folks working with or for MAHB/ KLIA, I suspect it is run or runs like your typical government agency...you know, the "file hilang, sila isi borang lagi...or dia pergi keluar minum, encik.." style. I do wonder if Khazanah is having a constant and recurring migraine with MAHB?

[reyneo 0]

Sorry, but what is "rakyat'? When I saw the post on AK's website, I thought it was a name in place of KLIA East @ Labu...

 

And yes, a good spin can do a lot to change the public's perception (which is VERY important) of things. Just like how KE and OZ 'spun' a story to block TR's korean venture and made the public go against the Incheon Govt and TR's JV from forming the now cancelled LCC. If AK does its PR right (and if MAHB doesn't do much publicity for its case), AK will be able to convince the public to agree with them.

 

And actually, if AK does eventually own Labu, it won't be the first airline to own its own airport. Remember Bangkok Airways and USM Airport?

[KK Lee 5]

 

The 920,000 sq ft terminal without aerobridges can be built commercially for between RM150 million to RM300 million.

 

It is likely the LCCT artist impression was created by AK and MAHB jointly for project study. Believe AK is hard pressed for information and decided to use existing artworks for public relation.

 

The existence of this artist impression means negotiation between AK and MAHB took place for quite sometime but broke down.

 

 

[Ibrahim 0]

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.

 

I can make a 3D rendering of KLIA East if they wanted too, no need to pay me just trade with photography access.

 

 

[M. Sofian H. 0]

What the hell?

 

50th Annual Grammy Awards

The Best Actor = TF

[Aiman 0]

Baim..not to forget save it in gmax

 

Sofian..I thought Optimus Prime Kakakkaaka

[V Wong 0]

Again, courtesy of :http://www.airasia.com/site/my/en/pageWith...aed400-76e73d00

 

 

Thanks for the link. However, unable to finish reading the whole yarn - it is simply emesis inducing! On the other hand, makes Salman Rushdie's Best of the Booker pale in comparison.... ladies and gentlemen, I present to you 'Bestest' of Booker (apart from Oscar...)

Edited January 13, 2009 by V Wong

[Azri M. 0]

Sorry, but what is "rakyat'? When I saw the post on AK's website, I thought it was a name in place of KLIA East @ Labu...

 

And yes, a good spin can do a lot to change the public's perception (which is VERY important) of things. Just like how KE and OZ 'spun' a story to block TR's korean venture and made the public go against the Incheon Govt and TR's JV from forming the now cancelled LCC. If AK does its PR right (and if MAHB doesn't do much publicity for its case), AK will be able to convince the public to agree with them.

 

And actually, if AK does eventually own Labu, it won't be the first airline to own its own airport. Remember Bangkok Airways and USM Airport?

Reyneo, rakyat=people, which refers to Malaysian people. So in essence it means "People's Terminal". That's why it is full of spin, just to gain the "rakyat"'s support on the airport. Notice as someone mention, it is a terminal, not an airport (but then how come a terminal has a runway and control tower?).

 

It is not uncommon to hear an LCC having it's own terminal, in Melbourne and Gold Coast, the Tiger Airways have dedicated terminals exclusive for them to use. BUT the terminal is a mere 10-15 meters away from an adjacent terminal. So that's goood in terms of connectivity and efficiency. A new thing is to have an exclusive LCC airport with only one carrier using it.

[BC Tam 2]

Something to share

 

Crabby Malaysians and AirAsia – The Malaysian Insider

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 13 – Tall poppy syndrome. Crab mentality. Schadenfreude.

 

Go read it up in the Wikipedia. All relate to AirAsia’s phenomenal success and their current ambitions to build their own airport in Labu.

 

In any other country, some of us might cheer them. Their motto “Now Everyone can fly” proved to be true enough for the current low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT) at the KL International Airport to burst at the seams notwithstanding the terminal expansion ready in March.

 

For too long, we have complained about Malaysia Airlines shoddy service that they even dropped their MAS moniker which we cynically christened as “Mana Ada Sistem”. Now, Malaysia Airlines is using their airline code MH to mean Malaysian Hospitality, together with mealboxes that say a lot about our hospitality.

 

In any other country, the fact that other private companies want to run airports or terminals say a thing or two about the current operator. We too have long carped about monopolies and the need for competition. AirAsia succeeded with Tony Fernandes and team, competing with Malaysia Airlines although those who begot it couldn’t make it a success.

 

Yes, they had help from the government. They had fees cut, they had privileges but it all came back to us. No-fares. One ringgit fares. With all our taxes and charges listed out. Imagine, all these years to Singapore and back on shuttle flights for RM600 and all you get is a measly orange juice.

 

Now, even Malaysia Airlines has dusted off its 1990s proposals and finally seen the light to use turbo-prop aircraft out of Subang to cater to the leisure and business crowd who don’t mind going slower than jet-speed but will want full-service quality. That is competition for AirAsia.

 

But some of us in this great nation want AirAsia and Tony Fernandes to fail. He is the tall poppy that must be cut to size. He is the crab that must not be allowed to get out of the basket. He must endure misery for us to be happy.

 

Comeuppance? Perhaps, but we in Malaysia will be all the poorer when Airasia crashes and burns.

 

Then, everyone can cry.

 

from here

 

 

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Perlukah ada dua LCCT?

From skyscrapercity.com

 

Oleh Cynthia Yeoh

 

TINDAKAN kerajaan membenarkan pembinaan Terminal Penerbangan Tambang Murah (LCCT) yang baru di Labu, Negeri Sembilan menimbulkan banyak tanda tanya dan dilihat sebagai tidak bijak.

 

Persoalan yang ada, perlukah sebuah lagi hab penerbangan diwujudkan apabila lokasinya terletak hanya 10 kilometer daripada kemudahan sedia ada milik kerajaan.

 

Lagipun, pelan penstrukturan kewangan Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd. (MAHB) yang diluluskan kerajaan baru-baru ini, telahpun membolehkan syarikat itu meneruskan cadangan pembangunan LCCT baru yang didakwa AirAsia Bhd., pengendali penerbangan tambang murah, sebagai lambat dilaksanakan.

 

Pelan itu juga menyaksikan pengendali lapangan terbang tersebut juga akan menaik taraf LCCT sedia ada di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA), Sepang.

 

Kegagalan pengendali lapangan terbang itu menyaingi keperluan AirAsia sebelum ini lebih dilihat sebagai kekangannya sebagai sebuah syarikat milik kerajaan selain kepesatan syarikat penerbangan tambang murah yang berlaku terlalu cepat dan di luar jangkaan.

 

Kewujudan dua buah LCCT yang mempunyai fungsi yang hampir sama kecuali satunya menjadi pusat eksklusif untuk AirAsia, bakal menafikan usaha negara untuk menjadikan KLIA hab penerbangan.

 

Tambahan pula, KLIA hanya mengendalikan 25 juta penumpang setahun sekali gus mempunyai ruang untuk dipergunakan sepenuhnya oleh AirAsia.

 

Sehubungan itu, hanya satu LCCT wajar diwujudkan di KLIA yang kini menyaksikan RM10 bilion dibelanjakan, selepas beberapa lokasi dan LCCT baru dipertimbangkan yang dijangka siap dalam tempoh tiga tahun untuk menyediakan penyambungan dengan pembinaan kos yang munasabah.

 

Namun begitu, sehingga kini, tiada penjelasan diberikan oleh kerajaan kecuali pengumuman demi pengumuman yang dilakukan oleh AirAsia dan juga Sime Darby Bhd., yang dikatakan pencadang kepada LCCT kedua itu. Persoalannya cukupkah pertimbangan diberikan hanya kerana ia adalah inisiatif swasta.

 

AirAsia juga pernah mendakwa pihaknya dikehendaki membayar caj penerbangan yang tinggi padahal AirAsia telah diberikan pengecualian ke atas bayaran caj tersebut (tidak termasuk Caj Perkhidmatan Penumpang (PSC)) selama lima tahun sejak perpindahan syarikat penerbangan tambang murah itu dari lapangan terbang Subang ke KLIA pada 2002.

 

Timbul persoalan mengapa AirAsia membuat dakwaan demikian walaupun tidak perlu membayar satu sen pun untuk menjalankan operasi penerbangan domestik dan antarabangsa di KLIA sedangkan MAHB pula mendiamkan diri selama ini?

 

Sebenarnya, bayaran yang dikenakan oleh MAHB adalah lebih rendah dan diberikan potongan diskaun berbanding lapangan-lapangan terbang lain di negara-negara jiran, demikian menurut MAHB dalam kenyataan yang dikeluarkan baru-baru ini.

 

Sememangnya benar pembinaan awal LCCT bukan melibatkan duit rakyat tetapi kebimbangan terhadap penglibatan kerajaan dalam operasi terminal itu sama ada langsung atau tidak langsung.

 

Keadaan itu bukan hanya dilihat sebagai mendatangkan pembaziran terhadap wang rakyat tetapi juga menimbulkan dakwaan ketidakcekapan kerajaan dalam membuat keputusan dalam merancang kewangan.

 

Justeru, tindakan kerajaan dikatakan memberikan satu 'tamparan' kepada MAHB, pengendali LCCT sedia ada di Sepang sekali gus mengelirukan pelbagai pihak.

 

Mungkinkah, MAHB gagal untuk menjangka impak AirAsia terhadap industri ini. Namun pengendali lapangan terbang itu menyatakan mereka bukan tidak dapat memenuhi keperluan AirAsia tetapi sebaliknya mengikut model perniagaan syarikat penerbangan tambang murah itu.

 

Benarkah AirAsia dikatakan terlalu gelojoh! Mungkin mereka juga betul kerana cadangan MAHB, terminal LCCT baru di KLIA yang akan siap pada 2014 hanya sekadar mampu menampung 15 juta penumpang manakala KLIA-East pula dapat menampung 30 juta penumpang dengan 70 tempat letak pesawat.

 

Paling aneh, di sebalik Kajian Pelan Induk Lapangan Terbang Negara yang diwakili oleh semua pihak terbabit, bagaimana pula perkara ini boleh berlaku.

 

Sekiranya Sime Darby dan AirAsia meneruskan pelaksanaan projek KLIA-East maka MAHB boleh menanggung kerugian besar dan berdepan dengan risiko kehilangan pendapatan dalam jangka pendek apabila operasi di Labu bermula.

 

Kelulusan yang diberikan kerajaan untuk pembukaan terminal baru di Labu juga bakal memberikan tekanan kepada harga saham MAHB.

 

Dalam jangka masa panjang, reputasi MAHB dalam industri berkenaan dilihat tidak begitu memberangsangkan dan memberi kesan yang buruk berikutan kegagalan memenuhi kepuasan AirAsia.

 

Secara keseluruhannya, pembinaan terminal baru perlu diperjelaskan kewajarannya oleh kerajaan supaya tiada pihaknya menanggung kerugian.

[Sandeep G 1]

Being logical:

 

AirAsia Academy - KLIA

SAE Engineering Base (aka AirAsia's Maintenance home) - KLIA

AirAsia's Future LCCT - ??????? Labu????????

 

I'm sceptical about the whole thing really. The excuse that the ERL poles are too high whilst valid - are by NO means a restriction on the development of the terminal by MAHB at the proposed location opposite the existing MTB.

 

The ERL line can ALWAYS be diverted from its existing location to either parallel the existing track along Runway 14L/32R at a lower depth and to permit taxiways to be constructed above it. In the meantime, the existing track remains open for operation until such a time as to when it may be removed for construction of the new taxiways. - The railway line should be looped from the MTB to the new LCCT as planned - enabling a single flow direction - dual track for seperation of transit and ekspres services. Much earthworks need to be done anyway - I don't think this is TOO much extra.

 

[Andrew Yong 0]

Lovely.... RM0.99 is the basic fee

 

Walk through the door - RM10.00 cover charge per head

Aircon charge - RM10.00 per head

Boarding slips - RM5.00 per head

Boarding announcement - RM5.00 per annoucement

Chairs in the terminal - RM0.05 per chair

To sit on them - RM 2.00 per 20 min block

Trash bin maintenance - RM10.00 per head

To use them - RM0.10 activated by coin slot to open the bin

Immigration - RM10.00 per chop

 

I pening already... You go add up the charges.

I think more extra and speacial charge will come. <_>

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Being logical:

 

AirAsia Academy - KLIA

SAE Engineering Base (aka AirAsia's Maintenance home) - KLIA

AirAsia's Future LCCT - ??????? Labu????????

Don't forget, Tune Hotel too.

[Khaled 2]

Instead of Labu, they should name it Tony International Airport. Code will be WmTF.

 

 

[Naim 6]

Something to share

 

Thanks, BC, tomorrow I'm off to Krabi (again) with the missus for the weekend, at RM113/pax return KUL/KBV. For that price I don't care which airport the plane takes off, as long as it is convenient. And next May I'll only pay RM1200/pax for KUL/London return. Not possible if AK/AKX not around.

[Sharil Abdul Rahman 0]

While it is a good thing that air asia manages allow everybody the chance to fly, most of the time i feel like it is running too fast to soon, and what will happen when the bubble pops?

 

At the same time, i feel that MAHB is a lazy ass that did not forsee the supercalifragialisticexpialidocious growth of Air Asia.

 

A friend mentioned something - why cant MAHB instead LEASE the land to Air Asia to develop?

Is it a bad business decision?

 

I have this insane idea of just letting Air Asia develop the land next to 14R/32L and make their home base there. Seeing from the masterplan that there is allotted land for a parallel runway next to 32L and enough space for alot of airplanes to park there.

 

Another thing - anybody remember the shuttle buses that was used during Terminal 2's reign? Is it MAS's properties or MAHB? If its the latter, why cant they make a shuttle service through the apron? It would be a better use of the buses that i usually see nearby the Bunga Raya complex - and it can even make revenue. Monorel - level advertisements anyone?

[Izanee 0]

January 19, 2009 23:40 PM

 

Khazanah Not Supportive Of LCCT In Labu

 

 

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 19 (Bernama) -- Khazanah Nasional Bhd, the government's investment holding arm, is not supportive of the plan to buiild a permanent low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT) in Labu, its managing director Tan Sri Azman Mokhtar said Monday.

 

He said the National Airport Masterplan should be used as a reference on what should be built for the sake of the country's development.

 

"Under the masterplan, 10,000 hectares have already been set aside, of which only about a third has been used," he told reporters after presenting Khazanah's annual review here.

 

He was asked to state Khazanah's stand over the issue.

 

According to Azman, the airport sector is one where the clustering or network effect is important.

 

"We cannot have a few airports here and there because then you cannot get the connectivity," he said.

 

Describing it as a national issue, Azman said: "Certainly we should follow through".

 

"We have the masterplan and we should go back to that. I am sure that AirAsia and Malaysia Airports can sit down and resolve (the matter) for the country's benefit," he said.

 

When building the airport, they should have software and hardware connectivity to enable seamless travel, Azman said.

 

"We are shareholders of Malaysia Airlines, we always maintain that both MAS and AirAsia can co-exist so that everybody can benefit," he said.

 

"In short, we do not support the Labu project. We should stick to the National Airport Masterplan as a lot of resources had been put in," he added.

 

Earlier this month, Sime Darby announced that it has received government approval to develop the proposed private LCCT project.

 

The conglomerate said the project was an integral part of its development plan for the Negeri Sembilan Vision City (NSVC).

 

NSVC is part of its Central Vision Valley (CVV) property development project spanning Selangor and Negeri Sembilan.

 

Sime Darby and budget airline AirAsia Bhd had proposed to jointly develop and operate the RM1.6 billion LCCT which will be known as KLIA-East@Labu.

 

The project will be privately funded.

 

The RM1.6 billion is an estimate of the cost of structures and the runway but does not include the 3,000-acre piece of land where it would be constructed.

 

-- BERNAMA

 

 

 

Take that Uncle Tony! Good for Khazanah... they actually have the balls to stand up and say that KLIA@labu labi is an absolute waste of time and money.

 

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Comments from blog page of Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju MP).

 

I have been following the air transport industry for over 40 years, ever since when I was a teenager in Malaysia and even until now when I am living in London. Never have I seen so much turmoil , or potential turmoil , in the Malaysian air industry.

 

I know Mr Tony F. has been referring that KLIA East@Labu is not much further, if any, from Terminal 5 and Terminal 1 in London Heathrow Airport, but the big difference is both terminals in London Heathrow use the same runway and control tower , same train and road highway connecting systems, and KLIA East and KLIA do not. Also, whenever I mentioned to my British friends in London about what Air Asia plans to do, they shook their heads almost saying , “What is Air Asia doing? It is incredibly unreasonable.” However, it is without doubt the Mr Tony F. cares for his airline and he does have concerns on how to manage his airline given his dissatisfaction with KLIA and MAHB.

 

As I have no vested interests in either parties, my views are objective and I do not take sides.

 

For what’s it’s worth, here are my comments:

 

1) There are two main parties who are not in good terms with each other - Malaysian Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) and Air Asia.

 

2) Air Asia moves away because it claims to be dissatisfied with what was being offered , and what may be offered in the future,

by MAHB.

 

3) It is not unusual that the airport operator and the airlines that uses the airport do not always see eye-to-eye. It is evident even here in London between some British/UK airlines and BAA, the owner and managers of London’s Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. Some of the complaints are similar, the airlines would accuse the airport operators of not providing the standard of service they were paid to do, and that service charges are too high, etc.

 

5) If Air Asia has all it wants from the government and builds KLIA East, it will affect the entire future of aviation in Malaysia.

 

6) KLIA, which is already under utilised especially in terms of its runway, will become even more under utilised if Air Asia moves away. It will suffer greatly if connectivity, eg the number of cities it serves so that passengers can connect from one flight to another to fly to another city, will be significantly reduced.

 

7) As a consequence of the above, KLIA, as the main airport of Kuala Lumpur and indeed Malaysia, as a hub will be affected. It is competing with other strong contenters in the region, eg Singapore Changi, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Hong Kong Chep Lok Kok airports. The Malaysian govt. should support KLIA, and certainly, it is really unwise to allow KLIA East to be built as this has the effect of making KLIA even more uncompetitive.

 

8 ) The ordinary man should realise that one of the first priorities of any airline is to make as much profit for their company and share holders as possible, at least in the long term. Air Asia is no exception

 

If Air Asia ever finds itself in a near monopoly situation on some routes, by chasing away routes from MAS, you can almost bet that it will raise its air fares to the level that it will make maximum profit. “Peanut” fares will go out of the window. (I say this by looking at some “budget” fares from European low cost airlines are not always “budget” even though the standard of service is.) In the short term, Air Asia may reduce prices to attract customers, what can be termed as a “lose leader”, but when the market picks up, it will recoup it by raising fares. If it does not raise fares, it will raise profits by making other “stealth” or “hidden” charges. Again, you only need to look at some Low Cost Airlines in other countries including the European Union. A “£1″ flight from A to B could end up being like “£50″ before you board the aircraft! Malaysians should not be hoodwinked that Air Asia is all good. It is , after all, a trading company, it is not a Charity ! It looks after itself and its shareholders before it looks after you, the travelling public !

 

9) Air Asia Holdings seems to be following a very high risk strategy. Air Asia Holdings, or Mr Tony F., appears to think that by building his own airport and increasing routes, especially long haul inter-continental routes, it will create its own hub from cities around the world and connect those passengers onto Air Asia’s short haul routes. It feels it does not need to cooperate with other airlines to “feed” traffic for its business. (Most world airlines are doing the opposite, they are either merging or having cooperations with each other. )This is very high risk. In the relatively recent past, similar long haul low cost airlines which goes it alone have gone bust - Oasis Hong Kong , and Zoom Airlines. Air Asia , or Air Asia X would be very fortunate to defy that trend. So, let’s say, what happens if Air Asia X is not successful -what if oil prices rises yet again or demand for long haul flights fall due to the Credit Crunch- where would that leave Air Asia’s grand plan of connecting people from all over the world onto their shorter route flights does not succeed? . And God forbid, what if Air Asia goes bust?

 

Another big flaw of an airline is it tries to grow too quickly and it encounters problems with great increase in size - take for example, Braniff Airlines (USA), Air Europe (from the UK), People’s Express of the USA (Yes, People is in “Rakyat”!), and Zoom. Air Asia seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Let us hope it is not like some internet bubble , or property bubble because if it is, you know where it led those industries to! At the moment, most airlines, including Low Cost Airlines are reducing capacity, but what Air Asia appears to be doing, it is increasing capacity. Let’s hope that Air Asia is right, and the others are wrong, but it is still playiing a very high risk game. Maybe Mr Tony F is like a cat with nine lives and good for him!

 

4) One possible solution for this debacle (between MAHB and Air Asia) is to have a strong mediator. The government has to appoint this mediator. Maybe they can appoint an all-powerful “Transport Czar” that has powers to decide in the interest of the nation instead of just the parties. He will report directly to the Prime Minister.

 

The Transport Czar has a clear National Air Transport strategy and objectives.

 

He believes that MALAYSIA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS COME FIRST. Not individual parties like Air Asia or MAHB.

 

He aims to make KLIA a strong hub as one of his objectives, not weakens it. He should encourage competition between airports in the neighbouring countries, not within the same country especially when they are just 8 kilometres of so apart serving the same city.

 

He should see KLIA like Changi, Heathrow, Frankfurt, where they add new terminals but using the existing runways, etc. KLIA will become an “aero-tropolis”.

 

It is also very important that he ought to address the issues which is of concern from both parties, Air Asia and MAHB. He has to be a diplomat, but a strong one. He will not be bullied by any side.

 

He should try and find some kind of agreement so that it will enable Air Asia to remain in KLIA, perhaps with its own air terminal of the similar high standard comparable to the main KLIA air terminal, and not like the shoddy(?)/low standard(?). Maybe MAS can also have its own terminal.

 

The Transport Czar may also be flexible and inventive.

 

If the present “marsh” land for the new LCCT is of concern to Air Asia, and he is absolutely certain this cannot be fixed before long to build the terminal, perhaps another piece of land somewhere within the peripheral of KLIA can be built. Hopefully, it will be as close to the main KLIA terminal as possible. Air Asia will still be using the same ICQ (air traffic control), and the same runways as the present KLIA. This will reduce duplicity.

 

It will be good if he has the power to recommend to Parliament to rescind the permission for Air Asia and Sime Darby to build an airport so close to KLIA, thus potentially damaging the future of the country’s largest airport.

 

The Transport Czar could also say to Air Asia that he will advise the government in not providiing the highways and rail links with the new airport KLIA East should ever it be built (if he does not have the authority to rescind permission to build it).

 

There should be better , cheaper and faster links between the different terminals in KLIA to improve connectivity. Maybe a special bus service either with low fares, or even free transfer, can be created, to link between the terminals. Later on, the monorail can be extended to cover all the terminals.

 

MAHB may need to have a kick up the back and whipped into shape, to improve its performance.

 

The Transport Czar should also bear in mind that the country and its air transport infrastructure can bear different scenarios. That it can have a good airport hub in KLIA with air terminals built in time to serve its airlines, especially its home-based airlines, Air Asia and Malaysia airlines.

 

He should also not ignore the well-being of Malaysia Airlines, the national airline. He should encourage Air Asia to be successful as well as that of Malaysia Airlines. At the moment, it appears Air Asia sometimes is benefitting at the expense of MAS - eg Singapore-KL routes, domestic routes, etc.

 

It may be difficult but it would be advisable , and better, if Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines work together. MAS can provide the long haul passengers to feed into Air Asia’s short and medium haul routes. MAS and Air Asia, could also coordinate their schedules so that one flight from one airline can smoothly transfer to another. Or transit passengers from Air Asia does not have to check-in again if they fly MAS flights. MAHB, at KLIA, can provide much connection between terminals served by Air Asia and MAS.

 

In addition, perhaps, Air Asia could be given restricted access to Subang as MAS has with Firefly. It can have a fixed number of domestic routes from Subang but the bulk of its routes still ought to fly from KLIA. This will immediately ease Air Asia’s concern about not having enough airport terminal capacity at KLIA.

 

The Transport Czar may also have another card up his sleeve. He may be given the power to liase with Malaysia Airlines. If Air Asia is reluctant to cooperate with the country’s national policy, (as I think the govt still is a big shareholder in MAS) he may encourage Malaysia Airlines to create its own Low Cost Airlines, as Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, Qantas etc have done. MAS already have FireFly, all it needs is to “beef up” Firefly, give it a few more aircraft including a few Boeing 737s and it can compete quite well with Air Asia.

 

The Transport Czar, should also advise the government, that any airport projects should go through a thorough consultation so that the people of the country have a say. Enviromental issues should also be considered for any major airport development.

 

5) I think pressure groups, like Friends of the Earth , should also make their voices heard.

 

6) Malaysians citizens, who feel that Air Asia should remain in KLIA , they can also write to their MPs to express their views. In addition, they can write to Mr Tony F of Air Asia and say what you think. If you say you will not fly Air Asia because of what it is doing , I think Mr Tony F. it will make Mr Tony F. think again .

 

7) Air Asia can be a great airline. But it should not be acting alone. It should cooperate with other parties within Malaysia. It can be a “win-win” situation if everyone cooperates. Otherwise, everyone may lose. The nation cannot afford that.

[Ryan Soh 3]

Great insight... So far we have heard nonstop from Sime Darby and Air Asia, scores of responses from netizens and even Khazanah. What is MAHB's response?

[Fitri Shukri 0]

Comments from blog page of Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju MP).

 

I have been following the air transport industry for over 40 years, ever since when I was a teenager in Malaysia and even until now when I am living in London. Never have I seen so much turmoil , or potential turmoil , in the Malaysian air industry.

 

I know Mr Tony F. has been referring that KLIA East@Labu is not much further, if any, from Terminal 5 and Terminal 1 in London Heathrow Airport, but the big difference is both terminals in London Heathrow use the same runway and control tower , same train and road highway connecting systems, and KLIA East and KLIA do not. Also, whenever I mentioned to my British friends in London about what Air Asia plans to do, they shook their heads almost saying , “What is Air Asia doing? It is incredibly unreasonable.” However, it is without doubt the Mr Tony F. cares for his airline and he does have concerns on how to manage his airline given his dissatisfaction with KLIA and MAHB.

 

As I have no vested interests in either parties, my views are objective and I do not take sides.

 

For what’s it’s worth, here are my comments:

 

1) There are two main parties who are not in good terms with each other - Malaysian Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) and Air Asia.

 

2) Air Asia moves away because it claims to be dissatisfied with what was being offered , and what may be offered in the future,

by MAHB.

 

3) It is not unusual that the airport operator and the airlines that uses the airport do not always see eye-to-eye. It is evident even here in London between some British/UK airlines and BAA, the owner and managers of London’s Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. Some of the complaints are similar, the airlines would accuse the airport operators of not providing the standard of service they were paid to do, and that service charges are too high, etc.

 

5) If Air Asia has all it wants from the government and builds KLIA East, it will affect the entire future of aviation in Malaysia.

 

6) KLIA, which is already under utilised especially in terms of its runway, will become even more under utilised if Air Asia moves away. It will suffer greatly if connectivity, eg the number of cities it serves so that passengers can connect from one flight to another to fly to another city, will be significantly reduced.

 

7) As a consequence of the above, KLIA, as the main airport of Kuala Lumpur and indeed Malaysia, as a hub will be affected. It is competing with other strong contenters in the region, eg Singapore Changi, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Hong Kong Chep Lok Kok airports. The Malaysian govt. should support KLIA, and certainly, it is really unwise to allow KLIA East to be built as this has the effect of making KLIA even more uncompetitive.

 

8 ) The ordinary man should realise that one of the first priorities of any airline is to make as much profit for their company and share holders as possible, at least in the long term. Air Asia is no exception

 

If Air Asia ever finds itself in a near monopoly situation on some routes, by chasing away routes from MAS, you can almost bet that it will raise its air fares to the level that it will make maximum profit. “Peanut” fares will go out of the window. (I say this by looking at some “budget” fares from European low cost airlines are not always “budget” even though the standard of service is.) In the short term, Air Asia may reduce prices to attract customers, what can be termed as a “lose leader”, but when the market picks up, it will recoup it by raising fares. If it does not raise fares, it will raise profits by making other “stealth” or “hidden” charges. Again, you only need to look at some Low Cost Airlines in other countries including the European Union. A “£1″ flight from A to B could end up being like “£50″ before you board the aircraft! Malaysians should not be hoodwinked that Air Asia is all good. It is , after all, a trading company, it is not a Charity ! It looks after itself and its shareholders before it looks after you, the travelling public !

 

9) Air Asia Holdings seems to be following a very high risk strategy. Air Asia Holdings, or Mr Tony F., appears to think that by building his own airport and increasing routes, especially long haul inter-continental routes, it will create its own hub from cities around the world and connect those passengers onto Air Asia’s short haul routes. It feels it does not need to cooperate with other airlines to “feed” traffic for its business. (Most world airlines are doing the opposite, they are either merging or having cooperations with each other. )This is very high risk. In the relatively recent past, similar long haul low cost airlines which goes it alone have gone bust - Oasis Hong Kong , and Zoom Airlines. Air Asia , or Air Asia X would be very fortunate to defy that trend. So, let’s say, what happens if Air Asia X is not successful -what if oil prices rises yet again or demand for long haul flights fall due to the Credit Crunch- where would that leave Air Asia’s grand plan of connecting people from all over the world onto their shorter route flights does not succeed? . And God forbid, what if Air Asia goes bust?

 

Another big flaw of an airline is it tries to grow too quickly and it encounters problems with great increase in size - take for example, Braniff Airlines (USA), Air Europe (from the UK), People’s Express of the USA (Yes, People is in “Rakyat”!), and Zoom. Air Asia seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Let us hope it is not like some internet bubble , or property bubble because if it is, you know where it led those industries to! At the moment, most airlines, including Low Cost Airlines are reducing capacity, but what Air Asia appears to be doing, it is increasing capacity. Let’s hope that Air Asia is right, and the others are wrong, but it is still playiing a very high risk game. Maybe Mr Tony F is like a cat with nine lives and good for him!

 

4) One possible solution for this debacle (between MAHB and Air Asia) is to have a strong mediator. The government has to appoint this mediator. Maybe they can appoint an all-powerful “Transport Czar” that has powers to decide in the interest of the nation instead of just the parties. He will report directly to the Prime Minister.

 

The Transport Czar has a clear National Air Transport strategy and objectives.

 

He believes that MALAYSIA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS COME FIRST. Not individual parties like Air Asia or MAHB.

 

He aims to make KLIA a strong hub as one of his objectives, not weakens it. He should encourage competition between airports in the neighbouring countries, not within the same country especially when they are just 8 kilometres of so apart serving the same city.

 

He should see KLIA like Changi, Heathrow, Frankfurt, where they add new terminals but using the existing runways, etc. KLIA will become an “aero-tropolis”.

 

It is also very important that he ought to address the issues which is of concern from both parties, Air Asia and MAHB. He has to be a diplomat, but a strong one. He will not be bullied by any side.

 

He should try and find some kind of agreement so that it will enable Air Asia to remain in KLIA, perhaps with its own air terminal of the similar high standard comparable to the main KLIA air terminal, and not like the shoddy(?)/low standard(?). Maybe MAS can also have its own terminal.

 

The Transport Czar may also be flexible and inventive.

 

If the present “marsh” land for the new LCCT is of concern to Air Asia, and he is absolutely certain this cannot be fixed before long to build the terminal, perhaps another piece of land somewhere within the peripheral of KLIA can be built. Hopefully, it will be as close to the main KLIA terminal as possible. Air Asia will still be using the same ICQ (air traffic control), and the same runways as the present KLIA. This will reduce duplicity.

 

It will be good if he has the power to recommend to Parliament to rescind the permission for Air Asia and Sime Darby to build an airport so close to KLIA, thus potentially damaging the future of the country’s largest airport.

 

The Transport Czar could also say to Air Asia that he will advise the government in not providiing the highways and rail links with the new airport KLIA East should ever it be built (if he does not have the authority to rescind permission to build it).

 

There should be better , cheaper and faster links between the different terminals in KLIA to improve connectivity. Maybe a special bus service either with low fares, or even free transfer, can be created, to link between the terminals. Later on, the monorail can be extended to cover all the terminals.

 

MAHB may need to have a kick up the back and whipped into shape, to improve its performance.

 

The Transport Czar should also bear in mind that the country and its air transport infrastructure can bear different scenarios. That it can have a good airport hub in KLIA with air terminals built in time to serve its airlines, especially its home-based airlines, Air Asia and Malaysia airlines.

 

He should also not ignore the well-being of Malaysia Airlines, the national airline. He should encourage Air Asia to be successful as well as that of Malaysia Airlines. At the moment, it appears Air Asia sometimes is benefitting at the expense of MAS - eg Singapore-KL routes, domestic routes, etc.

 

It may be difficult but it would be advisable , and better, if Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines work together. MAS can provide the long haul passengers to feed into Air Asia’s short and medium haul routes. MAS and Air Asia, could also coordinate their schedules so that one flight from one airline can smoothly transfer to another. Or transit passengers from Air Asia does not have to check-in again if they fly MAS flights. MAHB, at KLIA, can provide much connection between terminals served by Air Asia and MAS.

 

In addition, perhaps, Air Asia could be given restricted access to Subang as MAS has with Firefly. It can have a fixed number of domestic routes from Subang but the bulk of its routes still ought to fly from KLIA. This will immediately ease Air Asia’s concern about not having enough airport terminal capacity at KLIA.

 

The Transport Czar may also have another card up his sleeve. He may be given the power to liase with Malaysia Airlines. If Air Asia is reluctant to cooperate with the country’s national policy, (as I think the govt still is a big shareholder in MAS) he may encourage Malaysia Airlines to create its own Low Cost Airlines, as Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, Qantas etc have done. MAS already have FireFly, all it needs is to “beef up” Firefly, give it a few more aircraft including a few Boeing 737s and it can compete quite well with Air Asia.

 

The Transport Czar, should also advise the government, that any airport projects should go through a thorough consultation so that the people of the country have a say. Enviromental issues should also be considered for any major airport development.

 

5) I think pressure groups, like Friends of the Earth , should also make their voices heard.

 

6) Malaysians citizens, who feel that Air Asia should remain in KLIA , they can also write to their MPs to express their views. In addition, they can write to Mr Tony F of Air Asia and say what you think. If you say you will not fly Air Asia because of what it is doing , I think Mr Tony F. it will make Mr Tony F. think again .

 

7) Air Asia can be a great airline. But it should not be acting alone. It should cooperate with other parties within Malaysia. It can be a “win-win” situation if everyone cooperates. Otherwise, everyone may lose. The nation cannot afford that.

 

Man, I was taken aback. This, to me, is the most knowledgeable MP we have on matters regarding aviation. Either Mr Wee Choo Keong is really smart or some smart guy/girl is advising him. It sounds like someone from MW is his 'Aviation Industry Reseach and Advisor Officer for Wangsa Maju MP'.

 

I just don't like him using the word "Transport Czar". Sounds too powerful.

 

So DSAI, if you ever succeded in becoming PM, I hope you consider this MP as your Transport Minister.

 

Great insight... So far we have heard nonstop from Sime Darby and Air Asia, scores of responses from netizens and even Khazanah. What is MAHB's response?

 

Hahaha... Ryan, don't you get it. MAHB respose is as usual... very slow and late...

 

[KK Lee 5]

If KLIA and Labu could not meet AK expansion plan, AK could be forced to rebase the excess aircraft to neighbouring country. Then KUL will lose another opportunity to become a hub (LCC) and travelling public need to folk out more for air fare.

 

If national interest is at everyone’s heart, MAHB should yield to AK request to construct the LCCT matching AK budget and specifications. Believe LCCT users expect a building similar to Jusco shopping mall standard not Pavilion or KLCC.

 

[Fitri Shukri 0]

If KLIA and Labu could not meet AK expansion plan, AK could be forced to rebase the excess aircraft to neighbouring country. Then KUL will lose another opportunity to become a hub (LCC) and travelling public need to folk out more for air fare.

 

If national interest is at everyone’s heart, MAHB should yield to AK request to construct the LCCT matching AK budget and specifications. Believe LCCT users expect a building similar to Jusco shopping mall standard not Pavilion or KLCC.

 

 

Have Sime Darby sold their stake in Tesco Malaysia? If not, we can expect a Tesco Labu to be integrated with KLIA East@Labu. . Sime Darby also have stake in BMW, but I don't expect BMW to become Labu Airport Taxi. Too bad the IJN wasn't sold to Sime Darby, if not, those with faint heart need not worry flying AK as the Labu Airport clinic will be manned by cardiologist!

 

 

Comments from blog page of Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju MP).

 

I have been following the air transport industry for over 40 years, ever since when I was a teenager in Malaysia and even until now when I am living in London. Never have I seen so much turmoil , or potential turmoil , in the Malaysian air industry.

 

I know Mr Tony F. has been referring that KLIA East@Labu is not much further, if any, from Terminal 5 and Terminal 1 in London Heathrow Airport, but the big difference is both terminals in London Heathrow use the same runway and control tower , same train and road highway connecting systems, and KLIA East and KLIA do not. Also, whenever I mentioned to my British friends in London about what Air Asia plans to do, they shook their heads almost saying , “What is Air Asia doing? It is incredibly unreasonable.” However, it is without doubt the Mr Tony F. cares for his airline and he does have concerns on how to manage his airline given his dissatisfaction with KLIA and MAHB.

 

As I have no vested interests in either parties, my views are objective and I do not take sides.

 

For what’s it’s worth, here are my comments:

 

1) There are two main parties who are not in good terms with each other - Malaysian Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) and Air Asia.

 

2) Air Asia moves away because it claims to be dissatisfied with what was being offered , and what may be offered in the future,

by MAHB.

 

3) It is not unusual that the airport operator and the airlines that uses the airport do not always see eye-to-eye. It is evident even here in London between some British/UK airlines and BAA, the owner and managers of London’s Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. Some of the complaints are similar, the airlines would accuse the airport operators of not providing the standard of service they were paid to do, and that service charges are too high, etc.

 

5) If Air Asia has all it wants from the government and builds KLIA East, it will affect the entire future of aviation in Malaysia.

 

6) KLIA, which is already under utilised especially in terms of its runway, will become even more under utilised if Air Asia moves away. It will suffer greatly if connectivity, eg the number of cities it serves so that passengers can connect from one flight to another to fly to another city, will be significantly reduced.

 

7) As a consequence of the above, KLIA, as the main airport of Kuala Lumpur and indeed Malaysia, as a hub will be affected. It is competing with other strong contenters in the region, eg Singapore Changi, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Hong Kong Chep Lok Kok airports. The Malaysian govt. should support KLIA, and certainly, it is really unwise to allow KLIA East to be built as this has the effect of making KLIA even more uncompetitive.

 

8 ) The ordinary man should realise that one of the first priorities of any airline is to make as much profit for their company and share holders as possible, at least in the long term. Air Asia is no exception

 

If Air Asia ever finds itself in a near monopoly situation on some routes, by chasing away routes from MAS, you can almost bet that it will raise its air fares to the level that it will make maximum profit. “Peanut” fares will go out of the window. (I say this by looking at some “budget” fares from European low cost airlines are not always “budget” even though the standard of service is.) In the short term, Air Asia may reduce prices to attract customers, what can be termed as a “lose leader”, but when the market picks up, it will recoup it by raising fares. If it does not raise fares, it will raise profits by making other “stealth” or “hidden” charges. Again, you only need to look at some Low Cost Airlines in other countries including the European Union. A “£1″ flight from A to B could end up being like “£50″ before you board the aircraft! Malaysians should not be hoodwinked that Air Asia is all good. It is , after all, a trading company, it is not a Charity ! It looks after itself and its shareholders before it looks after you, the travelling public !

 

9) Air Asia Holdings seems to be following a very high risk strategy. Air Asia Holdings, or Mr Tony F., appears to think that by building his own airport and increasing routes, especially long haul inter-continental routes, it will create its own hub from cities around the world and connect those passengers onto Air Asia’s short haul routes. It feels it does not need to cooperate with other airlines to “feed” traffic for its business. (Most world airlines are doing the opposite, they are either merging or having cooperations with each other. )This is very high risk. In the relatively recent past, similar long haul low cost airlines which goes it alone have gone bust - Oasis Hong Kong , and Zoom Airlines. Air Asia , or Air Asia X would be very fortunate to defy that trend. So, let’s say, what happens if Air Asia X is not successful -what if oil prices rises yet again or demand for long haul flights fall due to the Credit Crunch- where would that leave Air Asia’s grand plan of connecting people from all over the world onto their shorter route flights does not succeed? . And God forbid, what if Air Asia goes bust?

 

Another big flaw of an airline is it tries to grow too quickly and it encounters problems with great increase in size - take for example, Braniff Airlines (USA), Air Europe (from the UK), People’s Express of the USA (Yes, People is in “Rakyat”!), and Zoom. Air Asia seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Let us hope it is not like some internet bubble , or property bubble because if it is, you know where it led those industries to! At the moment, most airlines, including Low Cost Airlines are reducing capacity, but what Air Asia appears to be doing, it is increasing capacity. Let’s hope that Air Asia is right, and the others are wrong, but it is still playiing a very high risk game. Maybe Mr Tony F is like a cat with nine lives and good for him!

 

4) One possible solution for this debacle (between MAHB and Air Asia) is to have a strong mediator. The government has to appoint this mediator. Maybe they can appoint an all-powerful “Transport Czar” that has powers to decide in the interest of the nation instead of just the parties. He will report directly to the Prime Minister.

 

The Transport Czar has a clear National Air Transport strategy and objectives.

 

He believes that MALAYSIA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS COME FIRST. Not individual parties like Air Asia or MAHB.

 

He aims to make KLIA a strong hub as one of his objectives, not weakens it. He should encourage competition between airports in the neighbouring countries, not within the same country especially when they are just 8 kilometres of so apart serving the same city.

 

He should see KLIA like Changi, Heathrow, Frankfurt, where they add new terminals but using the existing runways, etc. KLIA will become an “aero-tropolis”.

 

It is also very important that he ought to address the issues which is of concern from both parties, Air Asia and MAHB. He has to be a diplomat, but a strong one. He will not be bullied by any side.

 

He should try and find some kind of agreement so that it will enable Air Asia to remain in KLIA, perhaps with its own air terminal of the similar high standard comparable to the main KLIA air terminal, and not like the shoddy(?)/low standard(?). Maybe MAS can also have its own terminal.

 

The Transport Czar may also be flexible and inventive.

 

If the present “marsh” land for the new LCCT is of concern to Air Asia, and he is absolutely certain this cannot be fixed before long to build the terminal, perhaps another piece of land somewhere within the peripheral of KLIA can be built. Hopefully, it will be as close to the main KLIA terminal as possible. Air Asia will still be using the same ICQ (air traffic control), and the same runways as the present KLIA. This will reduce duplicity.

 

It will be good if he has the power to recommend to Parliament to rescind the permission for Air Asia and Sime Darby to build an airport so close to KLIA, thus potentially damaging the future of the country’s largest airport.

 

The Transport Czar could also say to Air Asia that he will advise the government in not providiing the highways and rail links with the new airport KLIA East should ever it be built (if he does not have the authority to rescind permission to build it).

 

There should be better , cheaper and faster links between the different terminals in KLIA to improve connectivity. Maybe a special bus service either with low fares, or even free transfer, can be created, to link between the terminals. Later on, the monorail can be extended to cover all the terminals.

 

MAHB may need to have a kick up the back and whipped into shape, to improve its performance.

 

The Transport Czar should also bear in mind that the country and its air transport infrastructure can bear different scenarios. That it can have a good airport hub in KLIA with air terminals built in time to serve its airlines, especially its home-based airlines, Air Asia and Malaysia airlines.

 

He should also not ignore the well-being of Malaysia Airlines, the national airline. He should encourage Air Asia to be successful as well as that of Malaysia Airlines. At the moment, it appears Air Asia sometimes is benefitting at the expense of MAS - eg Singapore-KL routes, domestic routes, etc.

 

It may be difficult but it would be advisable , and better, if Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines work together. MAS can provide the long haul passengers to feed into Air Asia’s short and medium haul routes. MAS and Air Asia, could also coordinate their schedules so that one flight from one airline can smoothly transfer to another. Or transit passengers from Air Asia does not have to check-in again if they fly MAS flights. MAHB, at KLIA, can provide much connection between terminals served by Air Asia and MAS.

 

In addition, perhaps, Air Asia could be given restricted access to Subang as MAS has with Firefly. It can have a fixed number of domestic routes from Subang but the bulk of its routes still ought to fly from KLIA. This will immediately ease Air Asia’s concern about not having enough airport terminal capacity at KLIA.

 

The Transport Czar may also have another card up his sleeve. He may be given the power to liase with Malaysia Airlines. If Air Asia is reluctant to cooperate with the country’s national policy, (as I think the govt still is a big shareholder in MAS) he may encourage Malaysia Airlines to create its own Low Cost Airlines, as Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, Qantas etc have done. MAS already have FireFly, all it needs is to “beef up” Firefly, give it a few more aircraft including a few Boeing 737s and it can compete quite well with Air Asia.

 

The Transport Czar, should also advise the government, that any airport projects should go through a thorough consultation so that the people of the country have a say. Enviromental issues should also be considered for any major airport development.

 

5) I think pressure groups, like Friends of the Earth , should also make their voices heard.

 

6) Malaysians citizens, who feel that Air Asia should remain in KLIA , they can also write to their MPs to express their views. In addition, they can write to Mr Tony F of Air Asia and say what you think. If you say you will not fly Air Asia because of what it is doing , I think Mr Tony F. it will make Mr Tony F. think again .

 

7) Air Asia can be a great airline. But it should not be acting alone. It should cooperate with other parties within Malaysia. It can be a “win-win” situation if everyone cooperates. Otherwise, everyone may lose. The nation cannot afford that.

 

WAIT A MINUTE! I just noticed the above article is a COMMENT on YB Wee Choo Keong blog. So it is not written by the YB himself. Aiyaa, so embarass of me.

 

But I still think someone from MW is behind this write-up. Did you write it yourself Azizul? Since you are the one linking it to MW? But you don't live in London. So Izanee?

Edited January 20, 2009 by Fitri Shukri

[Mushrif A 3]

Fitri - those are "comments" written by someone else in the MP's blogs.

 

Khazanah has already said "no" - but people may just perceive that as a biased opinion given its stakes in MH & MAHB. Why is the MoF and MoT so quiet on this?

[Naim 6]

Take that Uncle Tony! Good for Khazanah... they actually have the balls to stand up and say that KLIA@labu labi is an absolute waste of time and money.

 

Not unexpected. Khazanah owns MAHB & MAS. Got to protect own investments.

[Ryan Soh 3]

Not unexpected. Khazanah owns MAHB & MAS. Got to protect own investments.

But that is not suprising no? Given what Khazanah said does hold true largely. KLIA is an under-utilised piece of resource that will waste away under the shadow of a busy Labu next door. Like as if it is not wasting away already... <_>