PSC at klia2 for international destinations beyond Asean up 46% to RM73 from January

[flee 5]

Have quality service framework first, then impose taxes

 

See: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/12/07/tony-fernandes-have-quality-service-framework-first-then-impose-taxes/

[Craig 0]

No one likes to pay (additional) taxes, but this is just leveling the playing field between T1 and T2 (no other airports in the world, AFAIK, charges taxes differently based on the terminal [not airport] they fly out from).

 

Before everyone starts complaining, airport taxes ex-ASEAN major cities to KUL (on MH) for your consideration:

Brunei: RM 37 (PSC)

Cambodia: RM 102 (PSC)

Indonesia: RM 46 (PSC)

Laos: RM 62 (PSC)

Myanmar: RM 14 (APIS) + RM 82 (PSC) = RM 96

Philippines: RM 131 (PH Travel Tax) + RM 45 (PSC) = RM 176

Singapore: RM 19 (SG Aviation Levy) + RM 25 (PSC) RM 61 (Passenger Security Fee) = RM 105

Thailand: RM 88 (PSC) + RM 2 (International Departure Fee) + RM 5 (APIS) = RM 95

Vietnam: RM 82 (PSC) + RM 9 (Pax/Bag Security Fee) = RM 91

 

Malaysia (for ASEAN): RM 35 (PSC) + RM 2.10 (GST - variable) = RM 37.10

Malaysia (for non-ASEAN): RM 73 + GST

 

In addition, Thailand charges RM 5 for APIS plus RM 2 for all international arrivals.

 

Malaysia already has the lowest departure fees/taxes to ASEAN countries and one of the lowest taxes to non-ASEAN countries. If you *really* want to save on the RM23, you can always fly to an ASEAN airport and connect to a non-ASEAN flight from there, but you'll have to pay taxes at the connecting airport too Malaysia on the other hand doesn't charge connecting pax taxes. The grass is not always greener on the other side

 

 

Right now, I do not feel the level of passenger service is equal to that of MTB. So I should be paying less service charge for it. Paying the same would mean that I will subsidise the passengers travelling via the MTB.

Remind me again, which other airport in the world charges differently based on how nice the terminal is or how far one has to walk?

Edited December 7, 2017 by Craig

[KK Lee 5]

 

Klia2 was purposely designed and built to be inferior to t1, a reason cited was cheaper psc.

 

Mavcom increased psc to non asean destinations this time doesn't mean it won't increase psc to asean abd domestic destinations next time.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Klia2 was purposely designed and built to be inferior to t1, a reason cited was cheaper psc.

 

Mavcom increased psc to non asean destinations this time doesn't mean it won't increase psc to asean abd domestic destinations next time.

 

You're confusing klia2 with LCCT. LCCT was designed to be inferior to T1.

[KK Lee 5]

 

You're confusing klia2 with LCCT. LCCT was designed to be inferior to T1.

Building materials at klia2 e.g floor tiles, facilities etc are inferior to t1 e.g granite.

[flee 5]

Malaysia already has the lowest departure fees/taxes to ASEAN countries and one of the lowest taxes to non-ASEAN countries. If you *really* want to save on the RM23, you can always fly to an ASEAN airport and connect to a non-ASEAN flight from there, but you'll have to pay taxes at the connecting airport too Malaysia on the other hand doesn't charge connecting pax taxes. The grass is not always greener on the other side

Remind me again, which other airport in the world charges differently based on how nice the terminal is or how far one has to walk?

Politicians are fond of comparing what we pay for things in Malaysia but fail to compare what we earn in Malaysia.

 

KLIA, being the gateway airport for Malaysians, needs to be affordable to Malaysian travellers. It is already struggling to attract foreign pax due to the excellence of SIN and the connectivity of BKK. If it is to continue to grow sustainably, it must make itself more affordable. Increasing its service charges is not going to help.

 

klia2 pax growth in 2018 should be interesting to watch. In the past LCCT/klia2 pax numbers have exploded because budget travel is available to more and more people. But with costs at klia2 rising, it should be interesting to see if the growth trend will continue.

 

Airports need to learn that passenger perceptions are (rightly or wrongly) going to determine whether they visit again? If you don't get value for money, you will not return.

[Chris Tan 0]

Politicians are fond of comparing what we pay for things in Malaysia but fail to compare what we earn in Malaysia.

If you want to talk about incomes, 7 out of the 9 countries mentioned are poorer than Malaysia.

 

 

KLIA, being the gateway airport for Malaysians, needs to be affordable to Malaysian travellers. It is already struggling to attract foreign pax due to the excellence of SIN and the connectivity of BKK. If it is to continue to grow sustainably, it must make itself more affordable. Increasing its service charges is not going to help.

Slashing Malaysian airport taxes isn't going to change the fact that SIN and BKK are more attractive destinations.

 

Airports need to learn that passenger perceptions are (rightly or wrongly) going to determine whether they visit again? If you don't get value for money, you will not return.

I get the impression that you think visitors choose to visit a country based on its airport taxes. CDG sucks big time and has really steep taxes. That doesn't seem to deter people from visiting and flying out of Paris.

[Waiping 12]

There is really nothing that we can do. Much like water and electricity tariff, GST etc.

 

Like what was mentioned on the other thread, work on changing the "term".

[Craig 0]

Politicians are fond of comparing what we pay for things in Malaysia but fail to compare what we earn in Malaysia.

 

KLIA, being the gateway airport for Malaysians, needs to be affordable to Malaysian travellers. It is already struggling to attract foreign pax due to the excellence of SIN and the connectivity of BKK. If it is to continue to grow sustainably, it must make itself more affordable. Increasing its service charges is not going to help.

 

klia2 pax growth in 2018 should be interesting to watch. In the past LCCT/klia2 pax numbers have exploded because budget travel is available to more and more people. But with costs at klia2 rising, it should be interesting to see if the growth trend will continue.

 

Airports need to learn that passenger perceptions are (rightly or wrongly) going to determine whether they visit again? If you don't get value for money, you will not return.

You left out the part where I was comparing MY to all ASEAN countries and not UK or Japan? Maybe I should make it clearer that MY is the *cheapest amongst* ASEAN countries for intra-ASEAN flights and one of the cheapest to non-ASEAN destinations. If the average Malaysian traveler to non-ASEAN countries can't afford to pay RM23 more, what do you think of the average residents of Cambodia or Philippines who has to pay even more taxes for a short hop to a neighboring country?

 

Connectivity and airport taxes don't really go hand in hand. As previously mentioned, MY does not charge transit passengers taxes like most other countries do. Heathrow or Frankfurt with its exorbitant taxes manage to attract tons of connecting passengers. Even if MY eliminates its PSC, LH/AF/QF and the likes won't return to KUL anytime soon.

 

You could have an amazing airport with extremely low airport taxes but it won't attract a lot of airlines; case in point - DOH. Without QR, DOH will just be as busy as PEN/BKI.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Craig

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Airports need to learn that passenger perceptions are (rightly or wrongly) going to determine whether they visit again? If you don't get value for money, you will not return.

 

I have to disagree. US airports are dumps compared to KLIA - I have to pay to use a baggage cart in LAX, had nothing to do while waiting for check-in in IAD, and SEA felt like a bus station rather than an airport.

 

But I'd go to America again given the chance (like QR giving away cheap-as-hell tickets).

[tktoh 0]

It's true, it's true.

 

http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mp-alleges-airport-fee-hike-a-consequence-of-klia2-overruns

[flee 5]

klia2 is not a low-cost airport terminal, says MAHB

 

http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/klia2-not-lowcost-airport-terminal-says-mahb

 

 

 

 

Hahahaha - if what MAHB says is true, perhaps Airasia and MAB should swap terminals and see what passenger reaction will be....

[Craig 0]

Hahahaha - if what MAHB says is true, perhaps Airasia and MAB should swap terminals and see what passenger reaction will be....

 

You do realize that the RM73 non-ASEAN PSC fee for KLIA Terminal 2 is the same amount charged for *all passengers* departing from Malaysia to non-ASEAN destinations right? Regardless if the pax is flying JHB-CAN on AK (non MAHB operated airport) or KCH-SZX or PEN-HKG, it's RM73 for these pax as well. I don't see why KUL T2 should get a lower PSC.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Craig

[flee 5]

You do realize that the RM73 non-ASEAN PSC fee for KLIA Terminal 2 is the same amount charged for *all passengers* departing from Malaysia to non-ASEAN destinations right? Regardless if the pax is flying JHB-CAN on AK (non MAHB operated airport) or KCH-SZX or PEN-HKG, it's RM73 for these pax as well. I don't see why KUL T2 should get a lower PSC.

 

Red herring - other airports do not have terminals dedicated to low cost carriers. KLIA had specifically built klia2/LCCT2 to replace the original LCCT and forced the low cost airlines to move there.

 

Prime Minister Najib Razak's official ground-breaking ceremony speech for KLIA2: "It is with great pleasure that I officiate this ground-breaking ceremony of the new LCCT, which is to be known as KLIA2."

Several other politicians also referred to klia2 as a budget airlines terminal. MAHB later started to shift its position and called it a hybrid terminal - whatever that means.... Now, it has magically morphed into being a full service terminal...

MAHB draws flak after saying KLIA and klia2 are of equal stature

[Craig 0]

Red herring - other airports do not have terminals dedicated to low cost carriers. KLIA had specifically built klia2/LCCT2 to replace the original LCCT and forced the low cost airlines to move there.

 

Prime Minister Najib Razak's official ground-breaking ceremony speech for KLIA2: "It is with great pleasure that I officiate this ground-breaking ceremony of the new LCCT, which is to be known as KLIA2."

 

Several other politicians also referred to klia2 as a budget airlines terminal. MAHB later started to shift its position and called it a hybrid terminal - whatever that means.... Now, it has magically morphed into being a full service terminal...

 

 

MAHB draws flak after saying KLIA and klia2 are of equal stature

 

I think what you wrote is red herring and please don't quote what politicians said Those are just words/spins - you have to look at the facts. And KLIA2/LCCT2 is just a name (it'd be so much simpler if they just name it Terminal 1 and 2, no?).

 

It doesn't matter if other airports have a LCC terminal. MH could move into T2 if they wanted to (and at some point, they wanted to citing difference in PSC). Why do you think a LCC specific terminal should have the benefits of lower PSC? Don't you think the lower cost should come from the airline and not the airport operator/government?

 

And you mentioned that you feel like you are subsidizing T1 pax whilst using T2 due to lack of facilities. Maybe I not a frequent traveler like you, but the last time I flew out of T2, it still has check-in counters, moving conveyor belts, baggage delivery system, jet bridge, air-cond, toilets, security, immigration counters, and the whole nine yards. What am I missing in T1 that is absent in T2?

 

You also said that "KLIA, being the gateway airport for Malaysians, needs to be affordable to Malaysian travellers." - it is true that KUL is the main gateway for Malaysians, but of all the cities in Malaysia, do you think the greater KL area has the one of the highest, if not the highest, disposable income in Malaysia? What do you think of those pax in KCH/BKI/KBR/JHB/LGK etc. who has to pay the *same* amount of PSC to travel outside of ASEAN but from a "sub-par" airport compared to KUL? Are those pax subsiding KUL T1 pax as well? If I can have it my way, Id prefer those secondary airports have lower PSC due to lower disposable income rather than KUL T2, but then we will discuss about why certain airports have lower PSC, so I think we should just keep everything equal

Edited December 20, 2017 by Craig

[flee 5]

This letter to the editor sums it up nicely:

 

KLIA2 should indeed get special treatment

 

I am piqued by the SunDaily report “Why should KLIA2 get special treatment?”

An aviation source said the equalisation of Passenger Service Charge (PSC) for non-Asean routes at KLIA2 with KLIA should never have become an issue.

The reason given was that the PSC for all other international airports in the country located at Langkawi, Penang, Senai, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu was already the same as KLIA from Jan 1, 2017.

It added that the same PSC will apply at KLIA2 from Jan 1, 2018, and asked why should KLIA2 be given special treatment and the crescendo of complaints just before implementation?

The source pointed out that 70 percent of departing passengers to non-Asean destinations are foreigners, and the PSC for flights between Ipoh and Singapore is RM35, the same as KLIA2, which is a better airport than Ipoh.

The source contended that those making the argument that KLIA2 services are not very good does not hold water, as they are trying to say that services at the other international airports are better than KLIA2.

If the PSC for non-Asean destinations is not raised from RM50 to RM73, the government will be forced to fork out RM60 million in subsidy, according to Malaysian Aviation Commission executive chairman General (Rtd) Abdullah Ahmad.

He added that air travellers should rightly take up the higher charges and not the rakyat, as some of them have not even entered an aircraft or taken a flight.

All the above arguments are flawed and could easily be debunked.

Firstly, all those who opposed the move to equalise the PSC at KLIA2 with KLIA were only comparing between the two terminals, and not with other airports.

Therefore, all other airports in the country should not be brought into the argument. The core issue rests with why klia2 was built?

In 2008, the government approved a RM1.7 billion low-cost carrier airport called KLIA East@Labu jointly proposed by Sime Darby Berhad and Air Asia.

MAHB responded by saying that it has the funds to build a permanent low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT) within three years to rival the one proposed by Sime Darby and Air Asia.

But completion of the new LCCT was delayed and cost ballooned to RM4 billion by the time it was finally opened in May 2014.

It was dubbed as a hybrid airport as it was no longer low cost yet neither was it premium like KLIA. The losses should be absorbed by MAHB, as it is a public listed company and business entity, and not for the government to fork out RM60 million annually in subsidy if PSC at KLIA2 is not raised.

When PSC rates were equalised for all airports at RM73 for non-Asean, RM35 for Asean and RM11 for domestic at the beginning of 2017, an exception was made for KLIA2 for non-Asean PSC rates to remain at RM50.

It is common knowledge that KLIA2 was given this concession because of its LCCT roots. If KLIA East@Labu had materialised, PSC there is bound to be lower than all other airports in the country, regardless of their service quality.

But MAHB chose the cross-subsidy method, which is grossly unfair to passengers using lesser airports, similar to guests at one-star hotel charged for five-star service.

On the same note, AirAsia or any other interested body should be allowed to build their own low-cost carrier terminals, so that air travellers are given the option to pay less for no-frills service.

But KLIA2, which was designed as low-cost carrier terminal, became expensive by adding a huge shopping mall and morphed into a monster but conveniently called a hybrid, similar to a cheap car modified with expensive accessories but with no class.

Entering KLIA2 and emerging at the departure gate is like going through a long obstacle course, with afterthought travelators added and placed on top of the floors instead of built in.

With extra revenue from retail outlets, MAHB should reduce PSC instead of increasing it, which is the standard practice of train stations, where PSC is not charged and fares are subsidised by rental income from shops.

It was pointed out that that 70 percent of departing passengers to non-Asean destinations from KLIA2 are foreigners, and therefore do not affect Malaysians. It cannot be further from the truth.

Firstly, the 30 percent represents 1.5 million Malaysians, and secondly, all Malaysians are affected when our nation’s economy is affected by decreasing number of tourists.

Every year, we set higher targets for the number of visitors to our country, which was 26.8 million, 28 million, 29.4 million, 30.5 million and 31.8 million from 2013 to 2017, and 33.1 million for 2018.

But actual arrivals were always short of the target. There were 25.7 million, 27.4 million, 25.7 million and 26.7 million from 2013 to 2016, and likely to be 25.7 million for 2017. Official results were only released until August.

We have suffered a decrease of tourists for the past 36 months and every effort should be made to increase it. But we seem more determined to remove the last vestige of low-cost carrier terminal in our country, which is one of the twin pillars that have turned Kuala Lumpur airport into the major hub for budget carriers, affording the masses to fly at low cost.

By dismantling what we have built successfully, we are virtually handing over the lead to other airports in the region ready to seize the opportunity. Therefore it was no surprise that equalising PSC for non-Asean flights was welcomed by other countries and groups such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and International Air Transport Association (IATA).

Read more at https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/406953