AirAsia to raise Subang LCC hub idea again

[T Azahan 1]

and we all can go spotting in szb as traffic should increase. yeh yeh!!

[izhar 0]

Bring more services to Subang, including AK. I'm all for it, as it used to be. It is not about TF or IJ or other personalities. It is about passenger convinience.

I agree, for the sake of convenience, the government should allow SZB to be used by MH and AK for domestic flights.

and we all can go spotting in szb as traffic should increase. yeh yeh!!

Exactly!

[N Azman 0]

I remember the ground breaking of MIAC 2 odd years ago, but i don't seem to recall any plans for LCC placement at SZB. MIAC looks to be out the window anyway, judging from current state of structures at SZB. MRO center? LCC center? Aerospace research center? All of the above?

 

Wish the gahmen would just follow through with at least one of those. Lots of graduates in need of jobs out there...

[Izanee 0]

while i welcome subang as an LCC airport - I think that taking away 6 million pax/year from KUL will relegate it to a has been. at present, with 24.5 million/year pax we are literally just trying to break into the big league. we will never become a hub like SIN or BKK as much as i want it to - DXB (28 million) has already overtaken us, even CGK came from behind and took over (26-27 million).

 

i don't think it will be a good idea as KUL will lose its critical mass of passengers - one with air asia leaving and two, with MH reducing flights. other airlines which have returned such as LH and QF(JQ) will leave once again (as it happened in 1998 with the split site service by MH - compounded by the asian financial crisis); and airlines that plan to come back such as BA will not return.

 

KUL will therefore be relegated to a Far East/Middle East airport.

 

not a good idea.

 

tony is again asking for too much, too soon. he will not quit. the gov'ment is too indecisive in this issue.

[M. Sofian H. 0]

I thought the new forum guidelines stated that politics should be left at the front door before entering?

 

But i'am telling the truth... Please laa don't use any 'cable' in bisnes...

 

Between F50 and A320, which one can more economic fuel usage?

Edited October 20, 2007 by M. Sofian H.

[V Wong 0]

Makes one wonder how SIN, BKK, DXB steadily expanded over the years, how the respective national aviation long term plans were executed, etc.... Does Malaysia have a national aviation blueprint, executed according to plan? Right now, it looks like anything goes... anywhere.. anyone...anytime.

[Victor A. 2]

How about this?

 

 

From AK homepage, so cannot tipu-tipu one.

 

+++

 

those figure's are generate mainly for flights from LCCT and does not reflect their flight from other airports. twice i got delayed for 2 hours for BKI-KUL flight, then 3x KCH-KUL got delayed for 1hour 30min, then 4x SBW-KUL got delayed 1 hour. now being delayed for 30min is OK but more than that, its no laughing matter, what more if it really screw up your travel arrangement.

 

regarding AK intention of going back to SZB, don't thing the G would consider it. after spending so much building LCCT in KLIA then there's this new LCCT building next to KLIA ATC in the pipeline, seriously does anyone think the G would approved TF request to operate from SZB? after all its the G money that are being spend for this infrastructure/facilities not TF or AK money.

[M. Sofian H. 0]

 

for our information,

 

for AK, the meaning of delayed time is 30 minutes from actual time.

 

for MH the meaning of delayed time is 15 minutes (if not mistake) from actual time (IATA standard)

 

that why AK performance always 70% above.

 

My Question, Why AK not use IATA standard?

 

i see AK always use word RETIME... what the different between RETIME and DELAY?

[Waiping 12]

 

for our information,

 

for AK, the meaning of delayed time is 30 minutes from actual time.

 

for MH the meaning of delayed time is 15 minutes (if not mistake) from actual time (IATA standard)

 

that why AK performance always 70% above.

 

My Question, Why AK not use IATA standard?

 

i see AK always use word RETIME... what the different between RETIME and DELAY?

 

Exactly. If cancel flight all together not calculated! Why bother putting something like that on your own website and tend to cheat on it. This is false reporting!

[Wai Hung 0]

For fun, let's just compare head-2-head: 9M-MGK vs 9M-AFQ, say. And use official noise figures from http://www.easa.eu.int/

 

So:

 

a ) Taking off, AFQ very much noisier than MGK.

b ) Flyover, AFQ still very much noiser than MGK.

c ) Approach, MGK is minimally noisier (just noticeable), i.e. +1dB difference.

 

+++

berjaya air operates dash 7s, which is a 4 engined turboprop. its nothing like the fokker f27

btw, ive just remembered that transmile also operates in SZB and they have the 727 and the MD11s.

[Naim 6]

those figure's are generate mainly for flights from LCCT and does not reflect their flight from other airports. ...

As I said before, when you claim something, show where you got the documented info. Otherwise I won't believe it.

 

for our information, for AK, the meaning of delayed time is 30 minutes from actual time....

Again I need proof of this, otherwise I won't believe it. As simple as that. AK website says something else. http://www.airasia.com/site/sg/en/page.jsp...manceStatistics

Performance StatisticsAt AirAsia, we strive to give our guests the highest standard of service at the lowest fares. But this is never done at the expense of the safety of our guests. Because we know that the quality of our service will affect our guests, we make every effort to ensure that they measure up to your expectations and value for your travel plans. In accordance with industry standards, an 'on-time' departure is one that departs from the designated bay no more than 15 minutes from the scheduled departure time.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Naim

[FK Wong 0]

i guess all these were kinda expected the moment when the government approve firefly to operate from szb,jhb and pen.

lol. mr.tony were the one that gave on all the turboprop services at first saying that "it would only be feasible to have only one turboprop company in the country" eat those words tony.sad to say.

 

A320 flying in szb?everyone can expect to see it in tomorrow headlines "PROTEST ON AIRASIA operating FROM SZB AS IT BRINGS TOO MUCH NOISE".There is alot of housing area around there now,so i don't really expect airasia to operate from there UNLESS they start operating turboprop and mr.tony will have to start eating his own words.=).certainly no objection on tony operating from szb as long as it is turboprop.agree with capt.radzi.

 

[Wai Hung 0]

i guess all these were kinda expected the moment when the government approve firefly to operate from szb,jhb and pen.

lol. mr.tony were the one that gave on all the turboprop services at first saying that "it would only be feasible to have only one turboprop company in the country" eat those words tony.sad to say.

 

A320 flying in szb?everyone can expect to see it in tomorrow headlines "PROTEST ON AIRASIA operating FROM SZB AS IT BRINGS TOO MUCH NOISE".There is alot of housing area around there now,so i don't really expect airasia to operate from there UNLESS they start operating turboprop and mr.tony will have to start eating his own words.=).certainly no objection on tony operating from szb as long as it is turboprop.agree with capt.radzi.

dont think mr tony will use turboprops, not enough range for destinations like macau or china.

they might as well just stay in lcct if complains start to rise up.

anyway, they are having their brand new 330s soon, which means more noise.

it will be interesting to see those traffic going on in SZB.

[Victor A. 2]

As I said before, when you claim something, show where you got the documented info. Otherwise I won't believe it.

Again I need proof of this, otherwise I won't believe it. As simple as that. AK website says something else. http://www.airasia.com/site/sg/en/page.jsp...manceStatistics

 

try to go to LCCT and observed the flight scheduled and actual a/c departure/arrival and you will get what i mean and also go to other airport in the country and observed the situation. as for documentation, somebody has to pay for me to do the study and present my case as nobody does have such documentation. i'm writing mostly from experience and i do believed somebody somewhere do have the same experience as i had encounter.

 

and don't believed everything AK put in their website, for marketing strategies they need to put such thing and half of it can be very deceiving.

[Naim 6]

try to go to LCCT and observed the flight scheduled and actual a/c departure/arrival and you will get what i mean and also go to other airport in the country and observed the situation. as for documentation, somebody has to pay for me to do the study and present my case as nobody does have such documentation. i'm writing mostly from experience and i do believed somebody somewhere do have the same experience as i had encounter.

 

and don't believed everything AK put in their website, for marketing strategies they need to put such thing and half of it can be very deceiving.

 

Nope, not good enough, sorry. I don't believe ya. And now you blame a deceiving website. Haven't you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

 

And yes, how often do you go to LCCT and other airports (per mth) for your 'study'?

 

+++

Edited October 20, 2007 by Naim

[M. Sofian H. 0]

Naim,

 

i get this info from MOT, sorry if i do mistake

[Wai Hung 0]

try to go to LCCT and observed the flight scheduled and actual a/c departure/arrival and you will get what i mean and also go to other airport in the country and observed the situation. as for documentation, somebody has to pay for me to do the study and present my case as nobody does have such documentation. i'm writing mostly from experience and i do believed somebody somewhere do have the same experience as i had encounter.

 

and don't believed everything AK put in their website, for marketing strategies they need to put such thing and half of it can be very deceiving.

sorry but,

this is like, im saying that your name is NOT victor, and u insist that ur name IS victor,

to prove that your name is victor, u showed ur birth cert and IC to me.

and i say that your IC and birth cert is faked.

[Naim 6]

Naim,

 

i get this info from MOT, sorry if i do mistake

 

No prob, sir. I mean, AK is a highly-regarded, highly-scrutinised, public-listed company with major local and foreign shareholders/stakeholders. With so much riding on this bandwagon, do you think they would denigrate themselves by faking some measly numbers on their website? Of course they can, but that would be extremely foolish.

 

+++

 

[Samuel Chy 0]

if Domestic flight switch back to SZB, they should provide better transportation between SZB and KLIA.

[Radzi 2]

Guys, the reason Firefly should operate from SZB os because turboprops shouldn't be allowed to operate regularly from KUL.

 

Jets, from 737 and A330 to 747 have landing speed of around 150 kts and min maneuvering speed (minimum speed in clean config) at around 220 kt. Turboprops are slower and too many of them will give problems to the ATC guys. This will affect capacity of the airport.

 

My view is, anybody operating turboprops should be confined to SZB. Anybody who want to operate jets should operate from KUL. If AirAsia wants to operate some turboprop flights, they should use SZB. If Firefly wants to operate B737, stay away from SZB.

 

There is another, more sinister scenario. Tony asks to operate from SZB. He knows the govt will say no. Then he'll say," Now you don't let me use SZB, you must build another LCCT for me / reduce my airport charge further / etc. etc." With the right "percentage" anything can be done. All Boleh!

[FK Wong 0]

Guys, the reason Firefly should operate from SZB os because turboprops shouldn't be allowed to operate regularly from KUL.

 

Jets, from 737 and A330 to 747 have landing speed of around 150 kts and min maneuvering speed (minimum speed in clean config) at around 220 kt. Turboprops are slower and too many of them will give problems to the ATC guys. This will affect capacity of the airport.

 

My view is, anybody operating turboprops should be confined to SZB. Anybody who want to operate jets should operate from KUL. If AirAsia wants to operate some turboprop flights, they should use SZB. If Firefly wants to operate B737, stay away from SZB.

 

There is another, more sinister scenario. Tony asks to operate from SZB. He knows the govt will say no. Then he'll say," Now you don't let me use SZB, you must build another LCCT for me / reduce my airport charge further / etc. etc." With the right "percentage" anything can be done. All Boleh!

 

biasa lar tu,since when what he asked from the government got rejected asides from the part of setting up the LCCT in

SZB?

 

again,i believe that the government themselves has already committed into building up the LCCT furthermore with recent pledges done by the government on expanding the LCCT.

[M. Sofian H. 0]

i think FY will fly to SIN from SZB in 2009.... it's possible?

 

 

[Teoh Z Yao 0]

I have not seen (or heard) of a Cessna 172, 182 flying into and out of KLIA. That's understandable - too slow. Perhaps not on regular flights. However, has a turboprop like the Fokker flown in and out of KUL? Curious... Anyone has a photo?

 

Suppose AK is allowed to operate via SZB. What effect will that bring to MH domestic sector? Thanks!

[Radzi 2]

However, has a turboprop like the Fokker flown in and out of KUL? Curious... Anyone has a photo?

 

Riau Airlines used to operate F50s from KUL. They didn't last very long. A few photos here.

 

[M. Sofian H. 0]

here i read from utusan melayu

 

Penjelasan oleh:

EDDIE LEONG, Pengarah Urusan FlyFireFly

Firefly perjelas sebab pilih ATR turboprop

 

Kapal terbang ATR dilengkapi dengan teknologi terkini, menawarkan penumpang-penumpang Firefly keselesaan dan tahap piawaian yang tinggi. Kapal terbang tersebut direka dengan ergonomi tempat duduk dan hiasan dalaman terbaru. Ruang menyimpan bagasi tangan dibina lebih besar, dan dinding kabin dihiasi dengan panel dan skim warna yang menarik. Kabin terbaru yang digelar Elegance ini juga adalah yang terluas di dalam pasaran kapal terbang sekitar kawasan ini.

 

Ia juga adalah kapal terbang turboprop yang pertama dilengkapi dengan sistem In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) dan Light Emitting Diode (LED) untuk seluruh kabin.

 

Berkenaan kelajuan pula, ATR turboprop adalah sedikit perlahan berbanding dengan kapal terbang jet. Tetapi untuk laluan-laluan sekitar kawasan ini, perbezaan jangka masa penerbangan adalah marginal (8 minit untuk setiap 250km penerbangan, untuk sesuatu kes yang sulit) dan hampir tidak disedari oleh para penumpang.

 

Sebagai tambahan, ATR adalah kapal terbang yang sesuai untuk digunakan bagi penerbangan rangkaian domestik. Ia juga menawarkan lebih frekuensi penerbangan berbanding dengan kapal-kapal terbang A320 dan B737.

 

Kapalterbang B737 menawarkan frekuensi penerbangan kurang daripada 50 peratus (13,500 penerbangan) dan kapal terbang A320 menawarkan kurang daripada 57 peratus frekuensi penerbangan (11,700 penerbangan) berbanding dengan ATR (27,000 penerbangan). Frekuensi penerbangan yang lebih biasanya akan memberi lebih faedah terutamanya untuk penerbangan domestik.

 

Kapal terbang ATR turboprop boleh mendarat dan berlepas di landasan yang lebih pendek berbanding dengan kapal terbang jet. Oleh itu, ia boleh melakukan penerbangan ke lapangan-lapangan terbang kecil di Malaysia. Ini penting dari segi pembangunan untuk sesetengah kawasan. Untuk pasaran-pasaran yang tidak dapat memenuhi kapasiti atau muatan A320 mahupun kapal-kapal jet yang lain, ATR adalah pilihan yang sesuai.

 

Sebagai tambahan, kapal terbang ATR mengeluarkan kurang 50 peratus asap CO2 berbanding dengan kapal-kapal jet dan kurang 30 peratus berbanding dengan kapal-kapal turboprop yang lain. Ia juga hanya membakar kurang daripada 50 peratus bahan api berbanding dengan kapal-kapal jet. Kapal terbang generasi baru ATR mematuhi undang-undang pengeluaran bunyi lebih baik berbanding dengan kapal-kapal jet yang lain. Ini juga adalah salah satu sebab kapal terbang turboprop sering digunakan untuk penerbangan ke lapangan terbang di kawasan bandar, contohnya Subang.

 

Kami bersetuju dengan pandangan positif penulis mengenai penggunaan Lapangan Terbang Subang untuk kapal terbang turboprop kerana ini amat dialu-alukan oleh para penumpang sebagai salah satu cara menyelesaikan kesan persekitaran pengangkutan udara.

 

Dalam masa yang sama ia menyediakan jalan untuk syarikat penerbangan tempatan menerokai kemungkinan pertumbuhan, menjadikan pengangkutan udara lebih selesa untuk para penumpang.

Edited October 20, 2007 by M. Sofian H.