AirAsia Renamed KLIA2 to LCCT2

[JuliusWong 0]

While we are debating who is right, who is wrong, TF being arrogant or a bastard, he and KM are earning millions by the minute and AirAsia Group is as strong as ever.......

 

The low cost carrier revolution in Asia was sparked off by TF and KM, the rest is history......

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

Do you know that a big chunk of the increase in cost is because AirAsia changed their mind about the baggage system that they want?

 

Have you ever wondered why after you exit klia2 baggage claim, there is a slope downwards? A bit weird, no? Does it seem like it was done on purpose? Hm....

I actually wondered about that before. As I often see people with large and heavy luggage struggling to hold on to their trollies upon descending that slope. Edited June 30, 2016 by Mulyadir Fitri

[KK Lee 5]

Do you know that a big chunk of the increase in cost is because AirAsia changed their mind about the baggage system that they want?

 

Have you ever wondered why after you exit klia2 baggage claim, there is a slope downwards? A bit weird, no? Does it seem like it was done on purpose? Hm....

Head room/height from the ground level to first floor slab (i.e arrival level) at other airports (e.g. HAN, BKK, AMS, etc) is lower than klia2 and have no issue to house baggage sorting system. It would be revealing if could dig out klia2 initial design drawings.

 

Flee, dont you get it? If TF were to go ahead with construction of Labu East i am 1000% sure he will quit halfway, government have to bail it out with taxpayers money, we gonna end up with two different airports so close to each other and it will beat the purpose of positioning KLIA as regional hub. Swear by my stray dog the idea was good but how sincere was TF and KM intention to get it done using AiAsia and Sime Darby's money? They barely got their house in order this quarter, airline business is fragile. How much cash they need to fund such a large infrastructure project? Ironic eh, talking about 'cost is enemy' mantra whilst digging deep into reserve to fund an airport project.

 

Labu East was never meant to be materialised. Just another dirty cheap tricks by TF to get attention. So does this renaming of LCCT2 whatnots. Dont get me wrong i admire what he did so far in Malaysian aviation but at times he went too far. We're not stupid. But some people still believe their stupid arguments.

KLIA2 was not entirely privately funded either. If KLIA2 design was to follow functional European design e.g. low ceiling height, both construction and operation cost could easily reduced by 30%.

Edited June 30, 2016 by KK Lee

[JuliusWong 0]

We can trace the whole fiasco back to 2013 when all hell broke loose.

 

http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2013/06/29/the-blame-game-of-klia2-parties-argue-over-lastminute-changes-which-are-said-to-contribute-to-comple/

 

Here is the breakdown on the sheer size of the "new" airport/ terminal after revision with input from AirAsia: https://matrodi.my/2014/04/09/whats-your-problem-tony/

 

http://says.com/my/news/klia-2

[jani 0]

Head room/height from the ground level to first floor slab (i.e arrival level) at other airports (e.g. HAN, BKK, AMS, etc) is lower than klia2 and have no issue to house baggage sorting system. It would be revealing if could dig out klia2 initial design drawings.

 

KLIA2 was not entirely privately funded either. If KLIA2 design was to follow functional European design e.g. low ceiling height, both construction and operation cost could easily reduced by 30%.

I am not aware of the whole issue. But my point is merely that sometimes there is also another side of the story which unfortunately MAHB is not as good as telling through the media compared to Tony who is a master at it.

 

klia2 not "entirely" privately funded? Did the government fund it directly through a grant or something? Hope for your enlightenment.

[flee 5]

I am not aware of the whole issue. But my point is merely that sometimes there is also another side of the story which unfortunately MAHB is not as good as telling through the media compared to Tony who is a master at it.

 

klia2 not "entirely" privately funded? Did the government fund it directly through a grant or something? Hope for your enlightenment.

Tan Sri and his co founder have a huge vested interest in the company they founded. They have no safety net. Failure is not an option - so their sense of survival and determination to succeed is very strong.

 

MAHB is a government department doing business. They usually have a take it or leave it attitude. Also the tidak apa attitude is strong. So they could not care less about telling their side of the story. Their over confidence and arrogance meant that they just could not be bothered.

 

The land that KLIA sits own was state land - as far as I know, it was given to MAHB for the development of the airport. There are also many other subsidies and privileges accorded to GLCs like MAHB that will not be given to private companies. So MAHB does not really do business on a commercial basis like normal private companies.

[BC Tam 2]

The land that KLIA sits own was state land - as far as I know, it was given to MAHB for the development of the airport

At least part of it was land privately owned and forcibly purchased by gahmen for purpose of KLIA construction

I cannot recall, but had airport operations been corporatized already when KLIA was built ?

[flee 5]

I cannot recall, but had airport operations been corporatized already when KLIA was built ?

In 1991, the Malaysian Parliament passed a bill to separate the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) into two entities with different spheres of responsibilities. DCA remains as the regulatory body for the airports and aviation industry in Malaysia whilst the newly created entity, Malaysia Airports, was established in 1992 to focus on the operations, management and maintenance of airports.

 

See: http://www.malaysiaairports.com.my/index.php?m=corp_info&c=brand&id=27

[BC Tam 2]

Thank you flee

 

So, Malaysia Airports came into being 1992 (corporatization)

Construction of KLIA started 1993, came operational 1998

Then listing on KLSE in 1999, whereby the now MAHB came about (privatization)

 

My guess is MAHB does not own outright all the real estate the airports sit upon, but has been granted rights for x number of years. And at y number of years before conclusion of x years, presumably interested parties will start making representations to gahmen of the day as to their interest in duties of an 'airport operator' albeit in better manner and efficiency exhibited by the incumbent .......

[jani 0]

Tan Sri and his co founder have a huge vested interest in the company they founded. They have no safety net. Failure is not an option - so their sense of survival and determination to succeed is very strong.

 

MAHB is a government department doing business. They usually have a take it or leave it attitude. Also the tidak apa attitude is strong. So they could not care less about telling their side of the story. Their over confidence and arrogance meant that they just could not be bothered.

 

The land that KLIA sits own was state land - as far as I know, it was given to MAHB for the development of the airport. There are also many other subsidies and privileges accorded to GLCs like MAHB that will not be given to private companies. So MAHB does not really do business on a commercial basis like normal private companies.

I am going to act as if I did not read your first two paragraphs, which is blatantly stereotypical.

 

An airport, first and foremost, of course is to facilitate a country's development. The airport does not belong to MAHB, MAHB is merely the operator.

 

However your second statement regarding private companies not receiving subsidies shows that perhaps you are not very familiar regarding how business is done, especially in Malaysia?

 

Maybe you should try and find out how much money AirAsia gets from the government, and in fact, MAHB? And you do realize MAHB pays the government annually right, not the other way round?

[flee 5]

I am going to act as if I did not read your first two paragraphs, which is blatantly stereotypical.

 

An airport, first and foremost, of course is to facilitate a country's development. The airport does not belong to MAHB, MAHB is merely the operator.

 

However your second statement regarding private companies not receiving subsidies shows that perhaps you are not very familiar regarding how business is done, especially in Malaysia?

 

Maybe you should try and find out how much money AirAsia gets from the government, and in fact, MAHB? And you do realize MAHB pays the government annually right, not the other way round?

I am aware of what goes on - I still retain a very small shareholding in MAHB and I attend the AGM sometimes.

 

Whether MAHB owns or operates the airports is not material. The question is whether it is helping or hindering the development of the country.

 

That was why Airasia's executives feel frustrated - they too, want to develop the air transport industry and make the country a premiere hub for low cost carriers. Tthe chairman of Airasia X candidly described their relationship with MAHB as "at best, it is a quarrel ridden relationship...." This renaming of the klia2 to LCCT is a publicity stunt, yes. But I think it is probably done because they felt that they have hit a brick wall with MAHB and they have to do something else to break the impasse.

 

So yes, I am aware of what goes on and I am speaking only from my point of view and my observations when dealing with various parties. Your viewpoints will, of course, be yours. So lets agree to disagree.

I am sure Airasia receives money from the government - it has some obligation to develop the national air transport network. As you are in the know, it would be nice if you could share the info with us.

Edited July 1, 2016 by flee

[Najib Ramli 0]

Tan Sri and his co founder have a huge vested interest in the company they founded. They have no safety net. Failure is not an option - so their sense of survival and determination to succeed is very strong.

 

MAHB is a government department doing business. They usually have a take it or leave it attitude. Also the tidak apa attitude is strong. So they could not care less about telling their side of the story. Their over confidence and arrogance meant that they just could not be bothered.

 

The land that KLIA sits own was state land - as far as I know, it was given to MAHB for the development of the airport. There are also many other subsidies and privileges accorded to GLCs like MAHB that will not be given to private companies. So MAHB does not really do business on a commercial basis like normal private companies.

 

 

I don't think there's any major airports in the world that is privately own...smaller airports maybe but definitely not a major airport.

 

when it comes to major airports all around the world, there's always public money involved be it the form of subsidies, grants, land or other forms of government assistance....

 

therefore to single out MAHB because it's a GLC receiving government assistance is a bit off base i would say...

 

and speaking of arrogance, i would say AirAsia is equally guilty and always only telling 1 side of the story...

[flee 5]

therefore to single out MAHB because it's a GLC receiving government assistance is a bit off base i would say...

I think this question of funding is off topic in this thread. Someone brought it up and the discussion sort of dragged on.

 

The issue at hand here is Airasia marketing klia2 as LCCT2. Maybe we should all get back on topic!

[JuliusWong 0]

Nasi sudah jadi bubur lah.....no point arguing anymore. TF has the cash to burn, no use of us arguing over here......

[Waiping 12]

MAHB sees clearer skies ahead

 

“If AirAsia wants to rebrand klia2 such that when people mention klia2, they think of low-cost travel and AirAsia (being the largest tenant there), that’s okay with me..."

 

http://www.theedgemarkets.com/my/article/mahb-sees-clearer-skies-ahead

Edited July 10, 2016 by Waiping

[David.W 0]

MAHB's response

 

[flee 5]

MAHB's response

 

 

Great, then there should be no justification for PSC increases....

[Waiping 12]

Hahaha...

[V Wong 0]

MAHB's response

 

 

Rubbish and childish response

[Sharil Abdul Rahman 0]

 

Rubbish and childish response

But this is an old response no? I've seen this at KLIA2 since it was opened.

[Izanee 0]

In fact, it was not 1.1 billion but 4.1 billion.... So it's all bull crap

[Mushrif A 3]

Maybe 1.1bn is just the terminal building.

[flee 5]

***deleted***

Edited July 14, 2016 by flee

[RaymondT 0]

It's in millions, definitely just talking about the terminal building only, not including the land, cost of foundation etc by the looks of it?

[Mushrif A 3]

And it only says "construction cost". Again, maybe that is just the bare shell without any fit out.

 

Also dont think that includes the new tower, tarmac, taxi ways, runway and associated navigation equipment. Land clearing, access roads etc