KLIA2 - New Mega Low Cost Carriers Terminal

[Naim 6]

LCCT deal shuts out AirAsia hopes

 

AirAsia wants to build the LCCT itself.

 

SEPANG, Dec 4 — The award of a RM363 million contract for the first phase of a new low cost carrier terminal (LCCT) to a Malaysian infrastructure firm by airports owner Malaysia Airports Holdings (MAHB) appears to have shut out budget carrier AirAsia which had wanted to build the LCCT.

 

But it’s boosted the fortunes of infrastructure firm WCT whose shares moved up 1.5 per cent to RM2.63 apiece.

 

On Wednesday, WCT told the stock exchange that it had been awarded a RM363 million earthworks and drainage job for the new RM2 billion LCCT by MAHB.

 

The contract is the first awarded by MAHB which has promised to deliver the LCCT — designed for 30-45 million passengers a year — by the third quarter of 2011. But its enforcement seems to have shut the door on budget carrier AirAsia which has been lobbying Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak — most recently in New York last week — to take over the project.

 

The budget carrier, which will be the main user of the new terminal, feels that MAHB will not make the deadline and is likely to overshoot the RM2 billion budget, according to industry executives familiar with the matter.

 

According to the executives, AirAsia is also peeved that MAHB will not furnish an indemnity to the budget carrier in case of late completion.

 

The standoff, which has been going on for almost 10 months, illustrates the dynamic tensions between an entrepreneur-driven firm and a government-linked company that doubles as the operator and owner of almost all the nation’s airports.

 

But the award has also boosted the fortunes of WCT which most analysts have now rated a “buy”.

 

The new contract will add to WCT’s growing reputation as a can-do specialist whose resume for main infrastructure works include the Kuala Lumpur International Airport, the Guthrie Corridor, a highway, and the Medini precinct in the Iskandar Region.

 

It is also represented overseas but, to widespread analyst approval, has no exposure to Dubai which has been roiled recently by the debt problems of Dubai World. Instead, the firm has RM914 million worth of contracts in the oil producing Gulf kingdoms of Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Bahrain which are cash-rich because of petrodollars.

 

According to analysts, the new award will push WCT’s outstanding order book to RM3.6 billion.

 

According to AmResearch, the firm is trading at 13 to 15 times 2010/2011 earnings which is at a 5-27 per cent discount to its peers like IJM Corporation and Gamuda. The research house pegged WCT’s fair value at RM3.74 a share. — Business Times Singapore

 

http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/business/45420-lcct-deal-shuts-out-airasia-hopes-

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

This one is rumoured to be the final design of the new permanent LCCT. Looks justified for a MYR 2 billion project. Very pretty looking terminal.

 

Overall View

 

Side View

[Sri Ramani K. 0]

nice, seriously! an insider hinted that there would be roughly 60 parking bays with about 15 remote stands. don't know how true this is though.

[Walter Sim 1]

Is this LOWCOST? looks grander than KLIA to me LOL

[Tony 1]

Is this LOWCOST? looks grander than KLIA to me LOL

 

Very futuristic expensive design for a lowcost terminal... I don't mind if it's for real though.

[Samuel Chy 0]

2xstingray's barb!

[Izhar Z 1]

Looks nice, but i dont know if it's cohesive with klia itself.....

[Yusoff 1]

Side View

Hmmm.... Once I saw the side-view of the LCCT, my brain immediately flashes me these images:

 

 

 

Geoducks!! :rofl: no kid'!

[Ashmil Abd Ghani 0]

Sorry guys... I can not see the photos posted by Mr Azizul by now... It be nice if someone can share it again...

 

Thank you

Edited December 30, 2009 by Ashmil Abd Ghani

[Dr Chuo Hock Tieng 0]

Very futuristic expensive design for a lowcost terminal... I don't mind if it's for real though.

I foresee another 20% increase go airport tax and service charge?

[Cheng Long 0]

Looks nice but at an estimated RM2 billion, I'm sure it's more expensive than a lot other airports in the country. It's not low cost.

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Why not allocate a small portion of the $2 billion to provide aerobridges ? We don't need an expensive architecture building for LCCT.

[Fairul 0]

Nice and futuristic renderings. Most of it are steel structure works. Steel doesnt come cheap nowadays. RM 680mil was awarded to WCT for the earthwork package recently. Terminal work (Civil and M&E) and airfield pavement package yet to be awarded. So, I'm looking forward how this estimated RM2bil project will baloon up.

[BC Tam 2]

No indication KLIA Express wil be accomodated there ?

Looks overly elaborate to me, but then it's just me probably

 

So, I'm looking forward how this estimated RM2bil project will baloon up.

How else you expect contractors (I mean the ones doing actual work) to at least break even nowadays ?

[KK Lee 5]

Aerobridge can be built for RM2.0 million per piece. Limited movement (to A320 class) aerobridge can be built for about RM1.0 million per piece. Hence, RM 2.0 billion LCCT is certainly has enough budget for aerobridges.

 

Understand AK did requested MAB to build aerobridge at the new LCCT but MAB is hesitated to provide convenience to LCC pax else more foreign airlines will be requesting to use the new LCCT instead of MTB.

 

[Radzi 2]

 

Understand AK did requested MAB to build aerobridge at the new LCCT but MAB is hesitated to provide convenience to LCC pax else more foreign airlines will be requesting to use the new LCCT instead of MTB.

 

 

Then, why bother with a new LCCT either? Might as well use the under-utilized MTB.

 

Anyway, I wonder how the aircraft using the new LCCT will be connected to the existing runways. Will a new parallel taxiway west of the 32L be build? And I expect the current segregated parallel approach arrangement (landing 32L, takeoff 32R) will be changed to dependent parallel approach as it will not be practical for aircraft from the new LCCT to be using 32R for departure.

[flee 5]

Yes, it does not make sense to have a LCCT with airbridges as it will not be very different from the MTB in terms of cost. I believe that a new runway will be built and that is where most of the flights to the LCCT will be taking off and landing on.

[KK Lee 5]

Airports Authority of India (AAI) bought aerobridges for about RM1.6 million per piece. Assume there will be 50 gates at the new LCCT, total cost is RM80 million or only 4% of RM2 billions budget.

 

Airport should be built for the functionality and for users (pax and airlines) convenience, architecturally finish should not be the priority.

 

Progress is about improvement, what’s wrong if the new LCCT is better and more efficient than MTB?

 

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/may/040509-Aerobridges-Lohegaon-airport.htm

 

[S V Choong 4]

Airport should be built for the functionality and for users (pax and airlines) convenience, architecturally finish should not be the priority.

I beg to differ on this one.... if that is all about functionality, then the current LCCT factory like design should be adopted.

 

There are some architectural finishes that looks pretty and nice without costing an arm and a leg. It is all up to the designer with how things are put together. Architecture finishes actually helps to maintain the life span of a building.

[flee 5]

I think that any LCCT (or airport for that matter) should be designed so that passenger flow can be expedited for the short turnaround times of the flights. The short haul apron (usually for small A320/737) should be separate from the long haul one as short haul flights come and go quickly and frequently.

 

LCCT should also be green and energy efficient so that running costs can be minimised. As such, the terminal's windows should only be on the north and south side so that the sun's rays do not enter the building, causing the air cond to work harder. Insulation should also be used to cut down the heat.

[KK Lee 5]

LCCT should also be green and energy efficient so that running costs can be minimised. As such, the terminal's windows should only be on the north and south side so that the sun's rays do not enter the building, causing the air cond to work harder. Insulation should also be used to cut down the heat.

 

Tell that to KLIA Consult, BKI T1 in particular.

 

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Airport should be built for the functionality and for users (pax and airlines) convenience, architecturally finish should not be the priority.

 

Couldn't agree more

 

 

I beg to differ on this one.... if that is all about functionality, then the current LCCT factory like design should be adopted.

 

There are some architectural finishes that looks pretty and nice without costing an arm and a leg. It is all up to the designer with how things are put together. Architecture finishes actually helps to maintain the life span of a building.

 

It is the PRIORITY.

 

The architectural should come after functionality. If the budget allocated is sufficient for expensive architectural, then go for it. Now with $2 billion budget for LCCT, the reason for not having aerobridges at LCCT due to high cost could not be justified (unless there is other reasons / hidden agenda).

 

I agree architecture finishes could actually helps to maintain the life span of a building. However, many buildings in M'sia have shorter serviceable life span due the lack of maintenance mentality / culture.

[Denny Yen 0]

I think functionality is the main priority...we're not building monuments like pyramids or arc de triiomphe.

 

When it comes to airport or other transportation related structures, making sure smooth circulation or flow of passengers + vehicles should be the priority.

 

Here is the polish example (which looks like a bus terminal) to ensure smooth circulation between departing and arriving passengers, they split both departing and arriving activities (parking, loading/unloading, public transportation, independent road channels, etc) into 2 independent spheres so that inflow and outflow do not congest with each other.

 

 

 

[S V Choong 4]

It is the PRIORITY.

 

The architectural should come after functionality. If the budget allocated is sufficient for expensive architectural, then go for it. Now with $2 billion budget for LCCT, the reason for not having aerobridges at LCCT due to high cost could not be justified (unless there is other reasons / hidden agenda).

 

I agree architecture finishes could actually helps to maintain the life span of a building. However, many buildings in M'sia have shorter serviceable life span due the lack of maintenance mentality / culture.

I am not suggesting that it has to be a monumental building, but yet it shouldn't be ugly. Ultimately all design must be functional and serve the purpose, this is the most basic requirement and this is why you need architects.

 

It doesn't often help when the general Asian mentality is that every building has to be monumental and expensive. What I am saying is that the design can be simple but yet looks pretty without being imposing and monumental and most importantly without all the expensive material. Like I said, strip of the architecture material, you will get bare concrete and bone stuff or you can go for tin shed factory like buildings.

 

Also bear in mind that the above example given by Denny eventhough it looks rather toned down, even so it is not a project without architectural materials/finishes.

 

What the real problem is... the construction budget in Malaysia may not entirely be a reflection of the actual project budget, there is a strong possibility that a great chunck of it is going into somebody's pocket!

Edited January 4, 2010 by S V Choong

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

I am not suggesting that it has to be a monumental building, but yet it shouldn't be ugly. Ultimately all design must be functional and serve the purpose, this is the most basic requirement and this is why you need architects.

 

It doesn't often help when the general Asian mentality is that every building has to be monumental and expensive. What I am saying is that the design can be simple but yet looks pretty without being imposing and monumental and most importantly without all the expensive material. Like I said, strip of the architecture material, you will get bare concrete and bone stuff or you can go for tin shed factory like buildings.

 

Also bear in mind that the above example given by Denny eventhough it looks rather toned down, even so it is not a project without architectural materials/finishes.

 

What the real problem is... the construction budget in Malaysia may not entirely be a reflection of the actual project budget, there is a strong possibility that a great chunck of it is going into somebody's pocket!

 

I agree great achitectural doesn't mean expensive, and great achitectutal will give a building life too.

 

However, in this instance, what puzzles me is the new LCCT design doesn't look cheap and yet the basic functionality (eg aerobridges for pax convenient) is not met. If we can afford a $2 billion terminal, why not allocate a small portion for the aerobridges ? Imagine during rainny days, pax still need to walk under the rain to board a plane after coming out from the $2 billion terminal waiting hall