KLIA2 - New Mega Low Cost Carriers Terminal

[BC Tam 2]

as a passenger i will feel waaayyyy comfortable waiting in an empty terminal. y wanted to be stuck in crowded area???

It could be a waaayyyy longer wait than what would be necessary if the airport was busier, translated from better connectivity and frequencies

[nrazmoor 0]

What type of airplane that can pass under the skybridge..?? Can A330 or maybe even A380 pass under that bridge?? or is it just A320/B737..

[Peter Smith 1]

The model at the MAHB Building shows a 747 passing beneath.

 

The one at LGW can handle everything except A380 and 747SP

[Radzi 2]

 

May 4th 2012. Work in progress.

[Syukri 0]

Wow the terminal is bigger than KLIA.. And got 2 of them!

[Mike P 0]

And so when KLIA was launched, its capacity and the project cost have disgusted a lot of people as they accused the government has built a big white elephant to accommodate little numbers of passengers... but with KLIA, Malaysian aviation groomed in 10 years times and it has ultimately fitted into its purpose.

 

I shall put my faith in KLIA2 and hope it fits its purpose in the near future! Yet still, quite sad to learn about the RedQ failed to dock here. But I hope MH's alliance with OW will bring more carriers and add more existing frequencies of the flights in KLIA, which also in time benefits the regional airports like PEN, KCH, and BKI...

[Izanee 0]

All those detractors that complain about KLIA being a white elephant have no clue about how vital the aviation industry is in adding value to the economy.

Malaysia needs to move on to the next level in terms of developing its services industry. Air services play a vital role in this. Even for the manufacturing industry, having an air cargo hub at our doorstep gives us an advantage of over our neighbouring countries. We are already up there in terms of busiest sea ports, now it's time to develop our air cargo hubs.

 

For those that think KLiA is a white elephant- look at our pax growth the last 3 years. Last year our growth (although high) was less than CGK and SIN but its probably a combination of route chopping by MAS and the lack of space at the LCCT.

 

37 million / year and now we are in the top 30 busiest airports in the world.

 

Public funds have been wasted in many other things in our country- including bailing out MAS. However, building KLiA was an excellent idea and Dr M showed much foresight.

[Cheng Long 0]

KLIA is good. My only grief is that it's so far away from KL.

[dean hizudy 0]

I think those people who claimed KLIA is still a white elephant today, they never been to KLIA in 1999/2000. That is why.....

[Roy Chin 0]

KLIA is great but HKIA & CHANGI are greater... plus KLIA is too far away from city centre...

[nrazmoor 0]

I dont think its too far away from the city center. Besides, we have the transportation system/infrastucture to support it. Maybe we need to enhance it by providing more options? We already heard the news that some airport situated in the middle of city for having constraint in expanding the capacity and even some of them have a curfew by not allowing night flight. So in a way, its kind of a good thing for KLIA to be located where it stand today.

Edited May 6, 2012 by nrazmoor

[Peter Smith 1]

Many major airports are located some distance from the City Centre - its typically where there is sufficient, suitable land available that does not impede on more important facilities needed closer to a CBD such as housing.

 

You do have great road systems and an even better train system to KLIA as it is.

[Sharil Abdul Rahman 0]

KLIA is great but HKIA & CHANGI are greater... plus KLIA is too far away from city centre...

 

not really.

 

the only reason changi feels close is because singapore is small - they cant make it further away.

HKIA is already the same distance as KLIA.

[Roy Chin 0]

not really.

 

the only reason changi feels close is because singapore is small - they cant make it further away.

HKIA is already the same distance as KLIA.

not really.

 

the only reason changi feels close is because singapore is small - they cant make it further away.

HKIA is already the same distance as KLIA.

 

HKIA is nearer lah... compared to KLIA... (HKIA to Tsim Tsa Tsui VS KLIA to Kuala Lumpur)

 

Yes Changi is near coz Singapore can't make it located any further... But it feels quite far too coz of that SMRT that stops a lot of stations/interchange before it arrives Changi... In that case, ERL is far better... But expensive... =.=" Don't worry KLIA is still the best, coz Changi & HKIA are so crowded... Therefore quite interested to try KLIA2 once it opens... (curious, what happens to the Satelite Terminal B of KLIA? Aren't they gonna build it...?)

[KK Lee 5]

This topic resurfaced every few years.

 

Before those walk in corridor of power cut out the land surrounding SZB, the reserved land was enough for dual runways and terminals for 50 millions pax.

 

Most growth at KLIA in the last 10 years was contributed by AK; if not AK, current KLIA pax would linger around 20 million mark.

Due to distance, travelling to KUL is an expensive and time consuming affair. If restriction was not imposed at SZB, most pax and airline would prefer SZB.

 

Success in absolute term can be jaguh kampong, believe it is more meaningful if compare with our neighbours SIN and BKK e.g. number of airline serving KUL before and after moved to KLIA will tell better.

[dean hizudy 0]

the KL-Putrajaya highway connect you to KLIA from KL in 30 minutes

 

http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=kl-putrajaya%20highway&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CGQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhssmalaysia.com%2Fnews%2Fkl-putrajaya-highway&ei=g6unT5L2IcSsrAf1xYHnAQ&usg=AFQjCNHciyZ0ucQD0X9VFes9F8X86je0GQ&cad=rja

[JuliusWong 0]

This topic resurfaced every few years.

 

Before those walk in corridor of power cut out the land surrounding SZB, the reserved land was enough for dual runways and terminals for 50 millions pax.

 

Most growth at KLIA in the last 10 years was contributed by AK; if not AK, current KLIA pax would linger around 20 million mark.

Due to distance, travelling to KUL is an expensive and time consuming affair. If restriction was not imposed at SZB, most pax and airline would prefer SZB.

 

Success in absolute term can be jaguh kampong, believe it is more meaningful if compare with our neighbours SIN and BKK e.g. number of airline serving KUL before and after moved to KLIA will tell better.

 

In that case, KLIA loses hands down. Changi has more than 100 international airlines, serving 210 destinations. BKK has 96 airlines serving equally many destinations. KLIA manages almost 60 airlines, serving just over 100 destinations.

Edited May 7, 2012 by JuliusWong

[Izanee 0]

Changi has less than 100 airlines. I think they also count airlines that codeshare but don't use their own metal. BKK has the most airlines (own metal), followed by SIN, then KUL.

 

Also KLIA loses out because the flag carrier is embarking on a route culling exercise

[dean hizudy 0]

what we are lack of is the home based carrier....every major airports around the world have at least 4 local based airlines or make it as a hub. Even SIN has 5 local airlines based there (excluding SCOOT). BKK even more......

 

Changi has less than 100 airlines. I think they also count airlines that codeshare but don't use their own metal. BKK has the most airlines (own metal), followed by SIN, then KUL.

 

Also KLIA loses out because the flag carrier is embarking on a route culling exercise

i think they counted cargo airlines as well

[nrazmoor 0]

what we are lack of is the home based carrier....every major airports around the world have at least 4 local based airlines or make it as a hub. Even SIN has 5 local airlines based there (excluding SCOOT). BKK even more......

 

 

I hope by 2015 when the asean policy comes in it will change.... Maybe we can even see SQ having a direct flight from KUL to other destinations (apart from SIN)

[Waiping 12]

I think the issue previously with KLIA was due to our "inability" to attract airlines here...

[flee 5]

Yes, unlike MAS, most airlines operate services only if there is sufficient demand to make a good return on the investments. No airline can afford to serve KUL for fun. So in order for KLIA to grow further, we need a serious level of demand. That is why the govt. is trying hard to focus as much demand at KLIA and make it a hub. All other airports in Malaysia should then be spokes. That way, passenger volumes can be higher at KUL, thereby attracting more airlines to venture here.

[KK Lee 5]

the KL-Putrajaya highway connect you to KLIA from KL in 30 minutes

 

http://www.google.co...86je0GQ&cad=rja

 

Toll to toll or door to door? At 160km/h?

 

I hope by 2015 when the asean policy comes in it will change.... Maybe we can even see SQ having a direct flight from KUL to other destinations (apart from SIN)

 

Won't be a surprise if the gomen ask for exemption because MH won't be ready for competition.

[Rashdan Radzi 0]

It's also a function of the economy. KLIA was conceived at a time when growth was a steady 8-9% a year and we thought we could sustain 7% a year all the way to 2020. If that had happened, I think KLIA would have been in fantastic shape even without LCCT.

[BC Tam 2]

That is why the govt. is trying hard to focus as much demand at KLIA and make it a hub. All other airports in Malaysia should then be spokes. That way, passenger volumes can be higher at KUL, thereby attracting more airlines to venture here.

Good in theory but I suspect going to be an exercise in dismal futility with open skies coming up