KLIA2 - New Mega Low Cost Carriers Terminal

[KK Lee 5]

AirAsia has explained that its business model requires a quick turnaround time in order to increase aircraft utilisation, which is why, it does not want to use aerobridges.

 

AK is using aerobridge in almost every airport outside Malaysia. It takes longer to go down and up contact pier than aerobridge, hard to buy this argument.

 

Probably MAB is charging too high for the use of aerobridge or trying to distinct LCCT from full service MTB.

[flee 5]

All because of AirAsia...

Well, the AirAsia Group airlines bring in a lot of revenue for MAHB. The fact that they have outgrown the current LCCT has forced MAHB to build something mega. With Tony Fernandes talking about a 500 plane fleet in another 10 years, KLIA2 needs to be big! MAHB needs to be sensitive to their requirements. Remember, the customer is always right!

 

AK is using aerobridge in almost every airport outside Malaysia. It takes longer to go down and up contact pier than aerobridge, hard to buy this argument.

 

Probably MAB is charging too high for the use of aerobridge or trying to distinct LCCT from full service MTB.

I was at Singapore Changi Airport T1 and I note that the AirAsia turnaround times are often longer than 25 mins. As LCCT is the HQ with lots of flights arriving and departing each day, any delays will be magnified manifold and that will affect their on time performance. It may be OK to have slight delays at other airports with fewer flights, but not at the LCCT.

[KK Lee 5]

I was at Singapore Changi Airport T1 and I note that the AirAsia turnaround times are often longer than 25 mins. As LCCT is the HQ with lots of flights arriving and departing each day, any delays will be magnified manifold and that will affect their on time performance. It may be OK to have slight delays at other airports with fewer flights, but not at the LCCT.

 

KUL rain about 150 days per year should have an impact on on-time performance.

 

http://www.world-climates.com/city-climate-kuala-lumpur-malaysia-asia/

http://worldweather.wmo.int/020/c00082.htm

[Ja Singh 2]

They should have at least 6 or 7 bays with aerobridges for other customers like jetstar and likes.

 

Hopefully they will have a roof where the AA A320 will taxi under and so no rain/sun issues.

[flee 5]

They should have at least 6 or 7 bays with aerobridges for other customers like jetstar and likes.

Yes:

 

MAHB said that provision has been made in the design of the terminal to accommodate the installation of aerobridges, if so required at any time, by AirAsia group or any other LCCs

[Waiping 12]

We are selling ourselves cheap.

[V Wong 0]

I was cursing myself for taking an AK flight last weekend, when upon landing in LCCT, the plane parked at the bay furthest away from immigration and I had to make the longest track to immigration... and was pontificating (and hoping) that this would not happen again with the new KLIA2, what with aerobridges and travellators.... so naive of me!

 

Therein AK's other rationale for no aerobridges... can just park any where that is convenient for scheduling, let passengers track to/fro without affecting on time perfomance. My assumption only.

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Majority of AK (if not all) fleet is A320, i am sure they could custom make the aerobridge to suit A320 for a quicker turnaround time

[flee 5]

I was cursing myself for taking an AK flight last weekend, when upon landing in LCCT, the plane parked at the bay furthest away from immigration and I had to make the longest track to immigration... and was pontificating (and hoping) that this would not happen again with the new KLIA2, what with aerobridges and travellators.... so naive of me!

 

Therein AK's other rationale for no aerobridges... can just park any where that is convenient for scheduling, let passengers track to/fro without affecting on time perfomance. My assumption only.

Current LCCT is not optimised - expanding like cancer. Some of the remote bays are quite far away. But I am OK with that - its like free gym. Can excercise while walking back to the terminal. Also a chance to shoot photos. They don't bother you too much when you are on the walkways.

 

Majority of AK (if not all) fleet is A320, i am sure they could custom make the aerobridge to suit A320 for a quicker turnaround time

I think that they prefer to use both front and rear doors. Most AK/D7 flights only use a front exit if aerobridges are used, slowing down the process.

 

Last month, I tried one EasyJet flight in Europe and they definitely took more than 45 mins to turnaround. Most of the pax boarding were held up at the single aerobridge. I think AK flights are much easier to embark and disembark.

[Ruiz Razy 1]

FYI aerobridge charges is RM65 per flight @ KUL , divide with 170 seats for typical A320 comes to about 38sen . Is that expensive?

[BC Tam 2]

I think AK flights are much easier to embark and disembark.

Must try convince myself of that fact next time I'm being taxied in an AK flight to an aerobridgeless terminal with rain pouring down by the bucketloads outside

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

FYI aerobridge charges is RM65 per flight @ KUL , divide with 170 seats for typical A320 comes to about 38sen . Is that expensive?

It was RM 85 as per 2010's charges list by MAHB. AK's A320s seat 180 passengers.

[flee 5]

Must try convince myself of that fact next time I'm being taxied in an AK flight to an aerobridgeless terminal with rain pouring down by the bucketloads outside

You don't have to tolerate that at all nowadays - we also have FY as an alternative LCC, and they do sometimes cost less than AK. The fares depend on when you book and when you are travelling, though.

 

From The Star:

 

New LCT designed to enable installation of aerobridges by AirAsia

 

KUALA LUMPUR: Provisions have been made in the design of the terminals at the new low cost carrier terminal, the KLIA2, to accommodate the installation of aerobridges, if required at any time by AirAsia group or other low cost carriers (LCCs).

 

However, Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) said in a statement yesterday that based on AirAsia's decision not to use aerobridges at KLIA2 even during inclement weather or for long haul operations, the terminal is constructed without the installation of aerobridges and ramps will be provided instead.

 

“As AirAsia and AirAsia X will be the major airlines at KLIA2, it may not be worthwhile to incur the cost if the aerobridges are not going to be used.

 

“Discussions will be held with other LCCs as well on their requirements,” said MAHB.

 

KLIA2, which is under construction, will be able to cater up to 30 million passengers. According to MAHB, each airline and LCC has different business models and requirements.

 

One of the requirements is the usage of aerobridges in their operations. AirAsia has explained that its business model requires a quick turnaround time in order to increase aircraft utilisation.

 

“This will allow AirAsia to operate additional sectors in a day and reduce cost and offer lower fares,” said MAHB.

 

This works especially well for short and medium haul sectors but less so for long haul sectors such as those operated by AirAsia X.

 

Therefore, AirAsia has appealed for an exemption from MAHB's policy of requiring airlines to use aerobridges.

 

To support AirAsia's business model, the exemption was given. Subsequently, it had to be extended to other LCCs. Given the exemption, AirAsia has the option of not using aerobridges.

 

However in practice, AirAsia uses the aerobridges during inclement weather at airports in Malaysia where aerobridges are provided.

 

MAHB noted that airports in other countries in the region had made it mandatory for airlines to use aerobridges where provided as to enhance passenger convenience, safety and security.

 

Should the airlines choose not to use aerobridges, their aircraft will have to be parked in a remote position and bus the passengers to the terminal. AirAsia has explained that they have to use aerobridges at other countries as they are compelled to adhere to the regulatory requirements at these airports, as no exemptions are given.

 

The current charge to the airline for the use of the aerobridge is RM85 per usage.

 

Based on a full A320 aircraft carrying 180 passengers for both arriving and departing flights, the cost of using the aerobridge works out to be less than 25 sen per passenger.

 

This makes MAHB's charge for the aerobridge the lowest in the region.

 

MAHB said it continued to receive feedbacks from the public requesting all airlines to use aerobridges to avoid inconvenience to passengers.

 

According to MAHB managing director Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad, MAHB would continue to engage AirAsia, AirAsia X and other airlines to look into the possibility of further aligning their operations to the needs of passengers.

[BC Tam 2]

You don't have to tolerate that at all nowadays - we also have FY as an alternative LCC, .....

Didn't MH say something similar along that line during AK's early days when people grouched about their costlier fares ?

 

 

MAHB noted that airports in other countries in the region had made it mandatory for airlines to use aerobridges where provided as to enhance passenger convenience, safety and security.

So, MAHB has decided to allow a compromise on passengers' safety and security then ?

[KK Lee 5]

It takes average 5 and 10 minutes respectively to disembark and board full load A320 via aerobridge.

[flee 5]

It takes average 5 and 10 minutes respectively to disembark and board full load A320 via aerobridge.

As I had said earlier, I have experienced this with both D7 and AK and it is definitely faster than the EasyJet A319 one. However, we do not have the statistics and it is just our own experiences.

 

My bro (SQ frequent flyer) even makes it a point to bring his kids on AK (when they come back to KUL) so that they can see the planes close up and smell the aviation gas. He does not want his kids to be too pampered by the SQ lounges, etc.

 

When you are running an airline, you have the stats and you can easily compare the timings. They do have the stats - e.g. how long it takes for luggage to come out from the aircraft to the baggage reclaim belts.

 

AK has deemed that aerobridges are an unnecessary cost (at least at their HQ in Sepang) and I guess they won't change that view until passengers vote with their feet. So, those who do not like it should complain to them. Then fly with other airlines. Maybe only then will they listen...

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

I think that they prefer to use both front and rear doors. Most AK/D7 flights only use a front exit if aerobridges are used, slowing down the process.

 

Last month, I tried one EasyJet flight in Europe and they definitely took more than 45 mins to turnaround. Most of the pax boarding were held up at the single aerobridge. I think AK flights are much easier to embark and disembark.

 

Virgin & Jetstar uses both front and rear doors for pax to disembark & sometimes embark as well(aerobridge at front & stairs at rear) at SYD & MEL. Why can't AK do that ?

[Ruiz Razy 1]

It was RM 85 as per 2010's charges list by MAHB. AK's A320s seat 180 passengers.

Even so; 47 sen per seat must still be "expensive"

[BC Tam 2]

..... and I guess they won't change that view until passengers vote with their feet. So, those who do not like it should complain to them. Then fly with other airlines. Maybe only then will they listen...

And my guess would be that AK is beyond that sort of Malaysian GLC mindset !

(well, hope so anyway)

[filipeseda 0]

Wow....

Interesting. I hope the new LCCT design still reflects the main terminal building. I hate to see 'rojak' architecture under 1 master plan.

 

 

More importantly, the LCCT should be provided with a seemless connection to the main terminal building perhaps via the Aerotrain or a post security bus system. The current design is as if it is part of a seperate airport and the connections are rather laborious and take up a lot of time. This will also enable KUL to gain an upper hand against Changi where its budget terminal has no transfer facilities. Furthermore by doing so, KUL can accomadate a greater variety of travellers' needs. For example, for those arriving on long-haul/medium-haul flights via the main terminal, can then transfer to short haul LCC flights at the LCCT to destinations within the region, which is in fact not a very uncommon practise.

[Arthur W. 0]

I wonder if they ever thought about having parking bays with roof. Planes just have to taxi under it and park. Stairs used as usual front and rear.

 

1) Passengers won't get wet

2) They can perform their quick turnaround (as they claim)

 

Doesn't really need to be a full roof, at least the front 1/4 of the plane is enough. Front doors only for rainy days, front and rear for sunny days.

[BC Tam 2]

I wonder if they ever thought about having parking bays with roof. Planes just have to taxi under it and park. Stairs used as usual front and rear.

Yup, many many interconnecting hangars, the like of those built nowadays for aircraft maintenance & repairs

Will also enhance the 'low cost' ambience too

Probably cost a heck of a lot cheaper to construct as well - which in Malaysia will probably mean it will never see the light of day

[flee 5]

More importantly, the LCCT should be provided with a seemless connection to the main terminal building perhaps via the Aerotrain or a post security bus system. The current design is as if it is part of a seperate airport and the connections are rather laborious and take up a lot of time. This will also enable KUL to gain an upper hand against Changi where its budget terminal has no transfer facilities. Furthermore by doing so, KUL can accomadate a greater variety of travellers' needs. For example, for those arriving on long-haul/medium-haul flights via the main terminal, can then transfer to short haul LCC flights at the LCCT to destinations within the region, which is in fact not a very uncommon practise.

KLIA2 will be connected to the KLIA Express rail line - its a 2 km extension.

 

The terminal will also have a proper bus and taxi station.

[filipeseda 0]

KLIA2 will be connected to the KLIA Express rail line - its a 2 km extension.

 

The terminal will also have a proper bus and taxi station.

 

Which I believe is insufficient.

[Robert 0]

I was cursing myself for taking an AK flight last weekend, when upon landing in LCCT, the plane parked at the bay furthest away from immigration and I had to make the longest track to immigration... and was pontificating (and hoping) that this would not happen again with the new KLIA2, what with aerobridges and travellators.... so naive of me!

 

Therein AK's other rationale for no aerobridges... can just park any where that is convenient for scheduling, let passengers track to/fro without affecting on time perfomance. My assumption only.

 

Ive just arrived back on AK722 and had the same thing and then at midnight there was a fair queue for immigration. After paying for an expensive taxi I find there is a also a fairly big queue