KLIA MTB Expansion

[Chris Tan 0]

Whatever they are planning to do, please do some refurbishment to MTB if they ever decided to construct, or to extend whatever terminals there. Mumbai new terminal really put KUL to shame. You dont even start comparing Changi. Even the new Jakarta Terminal 3/4

It needs a bit of "life", especially at night when it feels dark and dreary.

[jani 0]

Agreed. MTB and Satellite in dire need of refurbishment.

 

But as I mentioned, let's wait for MAHB's 2016-2020 business plan

 

MTB and Satellite will indeed be upgraded.

Edited November 25, 2015 by jani

[Sandeep G 1]

That's good news, Jani!

 

Hopefully some nice garden greenery in the terminal to re-emphasise that original Airport in the Forest-Forest in the airport theme.

[leon t 0]

there's no need to spend a few hundred or billion on building another new terminal. The existing MTB and satellite at KLIA is still adequate and in fact under-used now since KLIA2 started operations. What is needed is a major revamp of the existing KLIA to make it look modern and updated and esp to have more light coming in.

[flee 5]

Avoid repeating mistakes of KLIA2

 

Under the original plan, KLIA was to have one main terminal and four satellite buildings. Thus far, only the main terminal and one satellite building have been in operations since 1997, catering to 25 million passengers per annum (mppa). But with some additional work, this capacity can be bumped up to 30 to 35 mppa.

 

Of course, a new structure will eventually be needed, but a satellite building will be adequate to bump up the capacity to about 100 mppa instead of a new terminal building.

One thing it should not do is duplicate the current infrastructure by having a terminal building. MAHB must also be mindful of cost and expectations.

Full report: http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2015/11/27/Avoid-repeating-mistakes-of-KLIA2/?style=biz

Edited November 27, 2015 by flee

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

klia2 was borne out of a differing market condition - back when the masterplan was made, nobody envisioned LCC travel & airlines to boom. To hold MAHB to that plan with no flexibility would be suicide.

[jani 0]

Good picture though. Clearly can see that there is a lot of potential for expansion at MTB to the right and left sides.. Possibly also relocating Bunga Raya?

Edited November 27, 2015 by jani

[kandiah k 0]

It is interesting how this journalist says two airports when referring to KLIA and KLIA2.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Good picture though. Clearly can see that there is a lot of potential for expansion at MTB to the right and left sides.. Possibly also relocating Bunga Raya?

Ok so now we have a confirmation that the Bunga Raya Complex will be relocated elsewhere (old LCCT site?)

 

Do you happen to know:

Whether the extension to the left and right of MTB would be similar in length and symmetrical?

Whether the extension would inherit the same architectural design and style or something totally different?

[jani 0]

haha Azizul please don't take everything I say as "confirmation"

 

Honestly, regarding Bunga Raya, that was just my own thoughts.

 

Regarding your questions, no, I have not seen the exact plans. But as already mentioned in this thread.. the expansion outwards on the left and right is indeed a big possibility..

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Not sure if the support facilities at existing MTB has provision for extension, such as baggage handling system, underground aviation fuel pipelines etc ? Can anyone confirm if the existing aircraft refuelling at MTB is thru underground fuel pipe hydrants or fuel tanker ?

[jani 0]

I'm sorry I can't confirm those technical things

 

I work at MAHB under Planning.. specifically, overlooking MAHB's investments in foreign airports.

[Amirul Mazlan 0]

MTB is more user friendly compared to KLIA2 which we can really tell, it's designed in a rush and not so much thought given to easiness in navigating inside a terminal.

 

Lets hope the expansion project become a reality.

 

Abang Jani, can you forward our input to MAHB management? Hehehe

[Chris Tan 0]

It is interesting how this journalist says two airports when referring to KLIA and KLIA2.

IMO the biggest mistake of KLIA2 is its name. Why couldn't they call it Terminal 2?

[KK Lee 5]

Not sure if the support facilities at existing MTB has provision for extension, such as baggage handling system, underground aviation fuel pipelines etc ? Can anyone confirm if the existing aircraft refuelling at MTB is thru underground fuel pipe hydrants or fuel tanker ?

 

MTB and its facilities was built to handle 40 mppa. Whole KLIA jet A-1 fuel is delivered through underground pipe lines.

Edited November 27, 2015 by KK Lee

[S V Choong 4]

 

Avoid repeating mistakes of KLIA2

 

Under the original plan, KLIA was to have one main terminal and four satellite buildings. Thus far, only the main terminal and one satellite building have been in operations since 1997, catering to 25 million passengers per annum (mppa). But with some additional work, this capacity can be bumped up to 30 to 35 mppa.

 

Of course, a new structure will eventually be needed, but a satellite building will be adequate to bump up the capacity to about 100 mppa instead of a new terminal building.

One thing it should not do is duplicate the current infrastructure by having a terminal building. MAHB must also be mindful of cost and expectations.

Full report: http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2015/11/27/Avoid-repeating-mistakes-of-KLIA2/?style=biz

 

Last time I had a check at Kisho Kurokawa's plan, KLIA was going to have two MTB and 4 satellites.

 

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

The masterplan was a no go partly because of the KLIA Ekspres track that is running parallel to 32R/14L and also MAB was hesitant to shoo away Concorde, KLIA College and also the little cowboy town Downtown KLIA. All are sitting right smack in the middle of the mirror terminal site. And also, they wanted a third parallel runway, hence klia2 plan with 33/15 was born.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

the expansion outwards on the left and right is indeed a big possibility..

I am interested to know if the highly possible outward extention to the left and right wings of the MTB will be on the landside (further from check in island A and M), airside (further from Gate A/G 11 and B/H 11) or both?

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

 

MTB and its facilities was built to handle 40 mppa. Whole KLIA jet A-1 fuel is delivered through underground pipe lines.

Thanks for the info.

 

Hope the existing facilities have the spare capacity for expansion (eg appropriate main pipe size, trunk utilities cable route etc) if they are laid under existing fully developed site incl the parking apron

Edited November 27, 2015 by Kee Hooi Yen

[jani 0]

MTB is more user friendly compared to KLIA2 which we can really tell, it's designed in a rush and not so much thought given to easiness in navigating inside a terminal.

 

Lets hope the expansion project become a reality.

 

Abang Jani, can you forward our input to MAHB management? Hehehe

 

How do you know I don't forward all your input already?

 

I don't think there are any problems in regards to the design of klia2 though. It was just lacking the walkalators. However it was a difficult decision to make, to balance out being a so called "Low Cost" terminal, and having full frills.

 

Also note that the design of klia2 is modular. Meaning that when the time comes, expansion is pretty much straightforward. Just copy and paste.

 

IMO the biggest mistake of KLIA2 is its name. Why couldn't they call it Terminal 2?

 

For sure, the name is NOT the biggest mistake

 

The masterplan was a no go partly because of the KLIA Ekspres track that is running parallel to 32R/14L and also MAB was hesitant to shoo away Concorde, KLIA College and also the little cowboy town Downtown KLIA. All are sitting right smack in the middle of the mirror terminal site. And also, they wanted a third parallel runway, hence klia2 plan with 33/15 was born.

 

Is this true? Concorde, KLIA College and Downtown KLIA (what a terrible place btw) seem like temporary structures that could be easily moved?

 

I am interested to know if the highly possible outward extention to the left and right wings of the MTB will be on the landside (further from check in island A and M), airside (further from Gate A/G 11 and B/H 11) or both?

 

Hm. Good question. Will try to get back to you on this. Without discounting landside expansion, I think airside is indeed very likely.

 

Also, note that not just the sides are available to expand..... Plenty of space throughout. You just have to imagine

 

By the way, the new business plan will be out in January.

 

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

Is this true? Concorde, KLIA College and Downtown KLIA (what a terrible place btw) seem like temporary structures that could be easily moved?

 

 

It was listed as among the reasons why they chose the present klia2 site. The reasons were detailed on MAHB's website a few years back. Altho I think the main reason is they wanted a bigger plot to plonk the gateway@klia2 mall. The third runway was a very good call though. Less holdings now.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

I have plotted the envisaged potential expansion area at the MTB in yellow. I used very conservative considerations - not interfering with existing taxiway, Bunga Raya is not touched and be in line with existing structure while aware of the architectural style aspect (being symmetrical and all).

 

Is this by any chance close to the plan? Or something more 'there are a lot of room to grow, you have to use your imagination'?

 

[Ja Singh 2]

I have plotted the envisaged potential expansion area at the MTB in yellow. I used very conservative considerations - not interfering with existing taxiway, Bunga Raya is not touched and be in line with existing structure while aware of the architectural style aspect (being symmetrical and all).

 

Is this by any chance close to the plan? Or something more 'there are a lot of room to grow, you have to use your imagination'?

 

While the extension is great on either ends,the addition of gates to the departure lounge (where current check in couners are located) will create a bottle neck for a/c parked there on pushback,cause imagine 2 ac needs to be pushed back at the existing gates then this ac has to wait till the taxiway is completely clear.Also not to mention The views from the terminal will be gone.

 

If the extension goes all the way to bunga raya,the bunga raya can be drop off point 2 for pax who do not wish to walk too far.with a train service running the entire length of the terminal like changi.

 

Also the L shape can be extended on the other 2 ends too till when the aerotrain goes underground.

An addition of a new sattelite seems to be the ultimate thing to do tho.

Edited November 28, 2015 by jadivindra

[Geoff R. 0]

I have plotted the envisaged potential expansion area at the MTB in yellow. I used very conservative considerations - not interfering with existing taxiway, Bunga Raya is not touched and be in line with existing structure while aware of the architectural style aspect (being symmetrical and all).

 

Is this by any chance close to the plan? Or something more 'there are a lot of room to grow, you have to use your imagination'?

 

 

You're applying logic and common sense, therefore, I don't expect this to be anywhere near the final outcome

[Amirul Mazlan 0]

I think given the current rate MAB operating, this extension cum refurbishment and perhaps another satellite building is sufficient enough for the next 10 - 15 years. I just want them to do it tastefully, so we can have another bragging right.