Jump to content


Icon Important Announcement!


New registrations require administration validation. This may delay registration approvals.
Reach out to us on our Facebook Page for faster approvals


Photo

Airports' & Airlines' Operational Statistics


  • Please log in to reply
760 replies to this topic

#41 Ruiz Razy

Ruiz Razy
  • Silver Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 22 June 2010 - 09:32 AM

MAHB's 2009 Annual Report is out and here are some of the interesting statistics that I would like to share:
http://www.malaysiaa...id=129&&id=1425

Malaysia's busiest airports by passengers movement (more than 1 million passengers) [except JHB which is privately owned]:
1. KUL - 29,682,093 (+ 7.8%)
2. BKI - 4,868,526 (+ 3.8%)
3. KCH - 3,574,632 (+ 10.4%)
4. PEN - 3,325,423 (- 2.4%)
5. MYY - 1,620,345 (+ 5.4%)
6. LGK - 1,359,271 (+ 13.6%)
7. KBR - 1,003,162 (+ 20.0%)

Despite many complaints by KCH based MW members about nobody wanted to fly into their airport, airlines are cutting or terminating service there etc, the numbers surprisingly proved otherwise. KCH overtook PEN back as Malaysia's 3rd busiest airport with a double digit growth. KBR was a total shocker to break through into the 1 million+ category. Kelate boleh sokmo!


One does not have to be a University Graduate to see the success of KBR. It's obvious, for the following reasons: -
1. The longest distance, time and not 100% Highway by road from KL. Hello!
2. A large number of successfull Kelantanese works in KL. I noticed the "NIKs" are well known for business skills. We have one with MH here right?

And the next few are more physicological influences....
3. Pahamin ( A kelantanese) and it's links to AK may have created some sense of strong "Kelantan" connection to AK.
4. MH and the Wau logo, may have also similar vibes to the East Coast ( including Kelantan).

The question here is KBR capable of accomodating such pax. volume? I don't think so; if not, what is the game plan?

#42 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 22 June 2010 - 09:40 AM

The question here is KBR capable of accomodating such pax. volume? I don't think so; if not, what is the game plan?

The plan to upgrade KBR has been announced.

TRC Synergy unit secures RM45m job for Kota Baru airport
By The Edge Financial Daily
Wednesday, 19 May 2010 22:36

KUALA LUMPUR: TRC Synergy Bhd's unit Trans Resources Corp Sdn Bhd has secured a RM45 million contract to upgrade the Sultan Ismail Petra airport in Kota Baru.

TRC said on Wednesday, May 19, its unit received the letter of acceptance from Wira Akil Holdings Sdn Bhd on Monday.

"The letter of acceptance from Wira Akil is subsequent to an award being given by the Ministry of Transport to Wira Akil whereby TRC is named as the sub-contractor for the project," it said.



#43 Ruiz Razy

Ruiz Razy
  • Silver Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 22 June 2010 - 10:44 AM

The plan to upgrade KBR has been announced.


Details please. RM 46 million what is it for? Will it be
1 Terminal expansion? Which part... Departure Gates, Baggage Reclaim @ Arrival or Landside Area?
2 Increasing aircraft bays? Specifically Remote or Full Contact Stands?
3 Bay upgrades to Code D / E ?
4 RNWY expansion / upgrade? Is it just the Length or supporting TXWY ?

The amount mentioned would not be enough for all and IMHO KBR desperately need all of the above.

#44 KK Lee

KK Lee
  • Platinum Member
  • 5,201 posts

Posted 22 June 2010 - 11:31 AM

From MH international pax number;

2007 7,838,025,
2008 6,966,421
2009 6,515,516

Believe MH need more than ‘5 star rating’, ‘Best cabin crew’ and BTP X to compete internationally.

:drinks:

#45 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 23 June 2010 - 02:32 AM

While on the domestic front:

2009

Posted Image


2008

Posted Image


2007

Posted Image


In my opinion, 2009 was a very important year for MH as it put their declining passengers number on the domestic market at KUL to an end once and for all. At around 4.4 million passengers, MH has finally reached its ideal passengers number and can now breath a bit easy as the numbers have now became stagnant, there would probably no more or very insignificant amount of passengers crossover from MH to AK. MH can now concentrate on growth once again.

AK as usual, stellar as ever with (still) a double digit growth even after all these years. On the domestic front in KUL, AK is unstopped-able!

Our domestic market in KUL is getting larger. Only 4,168 passengers shy away from reaching 10 million passengers. AK controlled 56% of domestic market shares in KUL while MH 44% in 2009.

Edited by Mohd Azizul Ramli, 23 June 2010 - 02:35 AM.


#46 Ruiz Razy

Ruiz Razy
  • Silver Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:11 PM

Wud be interesting to c the impact of SZB and FY in the above KUL performance within the Domestic Services. If MH/FY is considered as one group, they may be "regaining" some numbers.

The other thing is the appox. 10 million total pax. wud also mean that every 1 in 2.7 Malaysians do travel in/out of KUL annually. Not Bad.

#47 BC Tam

BC Tam
  • Platinum Member
  • 7,410 posts

Posted 25 June 2010 - 06:12 PM

..... mean that every 1 in 2.7 Malaysians do travel in/out of KUL annually. Not Bad.

Reality more likely to be that only a small percentage of the population "do travel in/out of KUL" multiple times annually but the vast majority either stay put or make do with other modes of transport :)

#48 Dr Frasier

Dr Frasier
  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 26 June 2010 - 01:49 PM

Reality more likely to be that only a small percentage of the population "do travel in/out of KUL" multiple times annually but the vast majority either stay put or make do with other modes of transport :)

that is likely to be the true picture but you also need to remember that there are also tourist who travel on domestic routes...

Edited by Dr Frasier, 26 June 2010 - 01:51 PM.


#49 BC Tam

BC Tam
  • Platinum Member
  • 7,410 posts

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:04 PM

..... there are also tourist who travel on domestic routes...

That would dilute the "1 in 2.7 Malaysians" ratio even further, no ? :pardon:

#50 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:45 PM

Wud be interesting to c the impact of SZB and FY in the above KUL performance within the Domestic Services. If MH/FY is considered as one group, they may be "regaining" some numbers.

Ok let see. SZB recorded 819,840 passengers movement in 2009. Out of this, 670,336 (334,743 arrival + 335,593 departure) is for domestic sector. And SZB handled not only FY, but also Berjaya Air (and a few other Indonesian smaller carriers I suppose), but since Berjaya Air et. al. traffic is minimal, we can safely assume that all figures are for FY.

Therefore, if SZB and KUL traffics are combined, for domestic sector:

Malaysia Airlines + FireFly (4,407,339 + 670,336) = 5,077,675
AirAsia 5,588,493

AK is still the largest domestic airline in Kuala Lumpur (both KUL and SZB) by 500,000 passengers margin when compared to MH + FY. Market share of AK is 52% while MH + FY is 48%.

#51 Ruiz Razy

Ruiz Razy
  • Silver Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 06:06 PM

I'm pleased to c that this forum is becoming better in analyzing facts and figures .... in no time we all should get an MBA - Masters in Business Aviation! If only this user could provide one! :rofl: Syabas to all.

BTW, the ratio mentioned of " 1 every 2.7" is a figure of speach when analyzing a statistical data. Please do not get overbored by it.

#52 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 05 July 2010 - 11:13 PM

If one noticed, I missed to collect the data from ACI for the penultimate month, December 2009, and therefore can't conclude the 2009 passengers movement at the busiest airports in the world. Thankfully, someone did collected the data and here are the complete ranking of 175 of the world's busiest airports by passengers movement:

Posted Image
Posted Image

As we are all well aware, KUL handled almost 30 million passengers in 2009. This figure makes KUL ranked as the 40th busiest airport in the entire world. KUL is also ranked 4th in South East Asia, after BKK, SIN and CGK.

Some interesting notes:
  • Chicago's O'Hare, which was traditionally the second busiest airport in the world since like forever, was knocked down for the very first time by 2 places by Heathrow and Beijing.
  • Beijing is set to become a mega airport of the world with its ever double digit growth and already handling 65 million passengers.
  • Dubai handled close to 41 million passengers, surpassing Suvarnabhumi and Changi for the very first time. Dubai is world's 15th busiest airport in 2009.
  • Suvarnabhumi handled 40.5 million passengers and retaining its position as the busiest airport in South East Asia. Suvarnabhumi is 16th busiest in the world.
  • Changi handled 37.2 million passengers, ranked 2nd in South East Asia and is the 21st busiest airport in the world.
  • A surprise for 2009, Soekarno-Hatta broke into the top 30 ranking for the very first time, signalling Indonesia's future prowess in this arena. Soekarno-Hatta handled 36.5 million passengers in 2009 and is South East Asia's 3rd busiest and also ranked 23rd in the world.
Data was compiled by GregPz of Skyscrapercity.

#53 Ruiz Razy

Ruiz Razy
  • Silver Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:42 AM

Azizul's posted statistics do give a good overview of Airport Developments Globally.

Now the next step forward is to analyse as a whole ( macro context) what increases airport travellers and what makes money.

IMHO, my initial analyses are .....
KUL as an OD is at "disadvantage" compared to other 3 in the region: literally....
1 SIN - High income City State; Excellent OD base particularly for Premium Travellers / Legacy Carriers
2 BKK - Extremely good tourism as a nation. There's no need to advertise much. However recent events may compromise such scenario.
3 CGK - High population base with 1% are High Income ( works well for legacy and premium demand) and High propotion of "exported" workforce, this creates good volume of budget travellers.

If we look at all of the above, Klang Valley lacks of High Income Society and we are more concentrated on Medium and Upper Medium Class Society. This favours more for budget travellers , but the volume is not as significant as the "exported" workforce. And yet we don't have enough volume to support a good premium base. That's y KUL is having difficulty to attarct Legacy carriers like QF, BA, AF ..etc. If say Malaysia transforms into a High Income society as inspired by someone, we should not have a problem in having a good premium base.

Even as a HUB, a strong and good OD presence is highly essential. SIN works well for QF-BA as the local traffic could easily "fill in" the gap available.

However, KUL and Malaysia's popularity in M/East has managed to offset some of our disadvantages and from the way it looks , it is a market that we can't choose to ignore. What more, these are mainly compromises of High Income Society and Upper Middle Class.

Ok let see. SZB recorded 819,840 passengers movement in 2009. Out of this, 670,336 (334,743 arrival + 335,593 departure) is for domestic sector. And SZB handled not only FY, but also Berjaya Air (and a few other Indonesian smaller carriers I suppose), but since Berjaya Air et. al. traffic is minimal, we can safely assume that all figures are for FY.

Therefore, if SZB and KUL traffics are combined, for domestic sector:

Malaysia Airlines + FireFly (4,407,339 + 670,336) = 5,077,675
AirAsia 5,588,493

AK is still the largest domestic airline in Kuala Lumpur (both KUL and SZB) by 500,000 passengers margin when compared to MH + FY. Market share of AK is 52% while MH + FY is 48%.


We can also deduce that if the airport taxes are taken into consideration, MH group remains the biggest contributor to MAHB compared to AK in the Domestic Segment. I'm sure Internationally MH remains the biggest.

#54 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:39 AM

We can also deduce that if the airport taxes are taken into consideration, MH group remains the biggest contributor to MAHB compared to AK in the Domestic Segment. I'm sure Internationally MH remains the biggest.

I believe we could roughly calculate that. Ok let see from this exercise, airport tax is being imposed on departure point only, so for KUL and SZB, with the assumption that the ratio between the departure and arrival number is 50:50 except for SZB which is using the earlier assumption that all departure and arrival figures in SZB are for FY,

FOR DOMESTIC SECTOR

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 19,833,051.00
Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for arrival at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 19,833,051.00
FireFly (335,593 passengers for domestic departure at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 3,020,337.00
FireFly (334,743 passengers for domestic arrival at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 3,012,687.00
Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 45,699,075.00

AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 6 domestic airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 16,765,479.00
AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for arrival at KUL LCCT x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 25,148,218.50
Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by AK = MYR 41,913,697.50

*For AK's arrival, it's quite tricky as I believe the airport tax in BKI is MYR 6 instead of MYR 9 because AK is using the LCCT there.

So based on this assumption, yes the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK for domestic sector in KUL and SZB.


FOR INTERNATIONAL SECTOR

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 6,515,516 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 51 international airport tax at KUL) = MYR 166,145,658.00
FireFly (73,302 passengers for international departure at SZB x MYR 51 international airport tax at SZB) = MYR 3,738,402.00
Total airport tax for international sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 169,884,060.00

AirAsia (50% x 5,024,742 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 62,809,275.00
AirAsia X (50% x 981,241 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 12,265,512.50
Indonesia AirAsia (50% x 910,038 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 11,375,475.00
Total airport tax for international sector paid by AK + D7 + QZ = MYR 86,450,262.50

So based on this assumption too, the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK group for international sector in KUL and SZB. But it is just natural as the AK group is being charged with rates much lesser as they are using low cost airport facilities from MAHB.

#55 Ruiz Razy

Ruiz Razy
  • Silver Member
  • 372 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 09:54 AM

I believe we could roughly calculate that. Ok let see from this exercise, airport tax is being imposed on departure point only, so for KUL and SZB, with the assumption that the ratio between the departure and arrival number is 50:50 except for SZB which is using the earlier assumption that all departure and arrival figures in SZB are for FY,

FOR DOMESTIC SECTOR

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 19,833,051.00
Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for arrival at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 19,833,051.00
FireFly (335,593 passengers for domestic departure at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 3,020,337.00
FireFly (334,743 passengers for domestic arrival at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 3,012,687.00
Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 45,699,075.00

AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 6 domestic airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 16,765,479.00
AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for arrival at KUL LCCT x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 25,148,218.50
Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by AK = MYR 41,913,697.50

*For AK's arrival, it's quite tricky as I believe the airport tax in BKI is MYR 6 instead of MYR 9 because AK is using the LCCT there.

So based on this assumption, yes the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK for domestic sector in KUL and SZB.


FOR INTERNATIONAL SECTOR

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 6,515,516 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 51 international airport tax at KUL) = MYR 166,145,658.00
FireFly (73,302 passengers for international departure at SZB x MYR 51 international airport tax at SZB) = MYR 3,738,402.00
Total airport tax for international sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 169,884,060.00

AirAsia (50% x 5,024,742 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 62,809,275.00
AirAsia X (50% x 981,241 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 12,265,512.50
Indonesia AirAsia (50% x 910,038 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 11,375,475.00
Total airport tax for international sector paid by AK + D7 + QZ = MYR 86,450,262.50

So based on this assumption too, the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK group for international sector in KUL and SZB. But it is just natural as the AK group is being charged with rates much lesser as they are using low cost airport facilities from MAHB.


Now, the next logical thing to deduce is that based on the above, the proportion of expenses for the airport development / expenditure ( CAPEX and OPEX) should be based on such breakdown. Is that the case here? However, we must not forget the growth in numbers as such may influence the CAPEX determination. The next question would be to what extend that justify such Airport CAPEX breakdown between LCC and Legacy Carriers?

BTW, Azizul must have been taking a break watching Spain vs Germany that he was able to do such analyses at that time of the hour. :rolleyes:

#56 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 08 July 2010 - 01:10 PM

BTW, Azizul must have been taking a break watching Spain vs Germany that he was able to do such analyses at that time of the hour.

I don't have tv access last night. 'Watching' the match through Emirates live podcast at fifa.com only.

#57 Naim

Naim

    ****

  • Platinum Member
  • 5,948 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 06:45 PM

Beijing overtakes Heathrow as world's second-busiest airport
July 8, 2010

Beijing International Airport has overtaken London Heathrow as the world's second busiest, in a sign of China's growing dominance of international travel.

In terms of seat capacity, Beijing International is now second only to Atlanta Hartsfield in the US, according to a July 6 report by aviation analyst OAG.

...

The World's Busiest Airports

Ranked by Seat Capacity, data from OAG

1. Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL)

2. Beijing (PEK)

3. London Heathrow (LHR)

4. Chicago O Hare (ORD)

5. Tokyo Haneda (HND)

6. Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG)

7. Los Angeles (LAX)

8. Frankfurt (FRA)

9. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW)

http://www.smh.com.a...0708-1019i.html

#58 Mohd Azizul Ramli

Mohd Azizul Ramli
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 08:47 PM

The ranking of the world's top 30 busiest airports for Q1 2010 has been released by ACI, as follows:

Posted Image

Some notes to share:
  • It seems the aviation sector is looking solid in 2010. Only 3 of the world's 30 busiest airports recorded a slight decline in passengers movement.
  • Asian airports are dominant with double digit growth and also improving their respective rankings (PEK, BKK, DXB, CAN, SIN, CGK, PVG, ICN).
  • Beijing is assuring its top placing with only Atlanta, the world's busiest airport since like forever, being the hurdle.
  • Suvarnabhumi is South East Asia's busiest airport, ranked 9th in the world, up from 16th in the year end 2009 ranking.
  • The competition between Changi and Soekarno-Hatta is getting more intense. Both airports are neck to neck at world ranking no. 17 and 18 respectively with only 102,503 passengers margin. Based on the growth percentage, Soekarno-Hatta is expected to topple Changi for the first time ever in history in no time, thus becoming South East Asia's 2nd busiest airport.
  • Incheon finished at no. 41 in the year end 2009 ranking behind KLIA. They are now at no. 30 in the Q1 2010 ranking.
  • KLIA is nowhere to be found.


#59 aaronhiew

aaronhiew
  • Silver Member
  • 305 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 10:09 PM

Naim, soon to be the busiest airport in the world, do u thk so? :clapping:

#60 jani

jani
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,625 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 10:50 PM

CGK is mostly domestic traffic though, right? With low-cost carriers booming all around, it'll be hard for SIN and KUL to compete against a nation which has more than 200 million people.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users