Jump to content


Icon Important Announcement!

New registrations require administration validation. This may delay registration approvals.


Photo

AirAsia seeks over RM400m in counter-claim against MAHB


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Holger

Holger
  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 12:38 AM

http://www.theedgema...im-against-mahb

 

Next round... :drinks:



#2 Radzi

Radzi
  • Platinum Member
  • 4,536 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:29 PM

"The airline group further maintained that MAHB is now charging higher airport taxes because it is now seeking to recover from the traveling public the cost overruns it experienced after failing to manage costs during the construction of klia2."

 

Somehow, I agree.



#3 jani

jani
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,562 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 09:58 AM

Maybe there would have been less cost overruns had the red capped guy not changed his mind so many times?

 

That said, it is not MAHB that decides to increase or decrease PSC.....



#4 Waiping

Waiping

    Model Collector/Spotter

  • Platinum Member
  • 5,679 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 10:10 AM

This is a good move because this kind of lingering issue has been going on since KLIA2 started operation. I would really like to see how it would turn out, and who's side will the government will be on.

#5 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 11,242 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 11:53 AM

This is a good move because this kind of lingering issue has been going on since KLIA2 started operation. I would really like to see how it would turn out, and who's side will the government will be on.

The government should not be on anyone's side - they should look at each case on its own merits. The overriding concern should be the passengers who use the airport.

 

Why is it that Changi airport keeps reinventing itself all the time despite winning multiple excellence awards while KLIA is getting from bad to worse? It is because they keep improving the passenger experience. It is always a pleasant experience for me when using Changi either as a destination or in transit. I cannot say the same about KLIA2.

 

Since opening, KLIA2 has had a lot of problems and MAHB does not seem to be able to solve these problems permanently. I think users of this airport have a good case - lets hope that the courts are impartial and look at the evidence before them and make the correct decision.



#6 Chris Tan

Chris Tan
  • Gold Member
  • 783 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 12:37 PM


Why is it that Changi airport keeps reinventing itself all the time despite winning multiple excellence awards while KLIA is getting from bad to worse? It is because they keep improving the passenger experience. It is always a pleasant experience for me when using Changi either as a destination or in transit. I cannot say the same about KLIA2.
 

The unfortunate fact is that RM74 hurts Malaysian travellers a lot more than SGD47.80 does to your average Singaporean traveller. All those sunflowers and butterflies don't come cheap.
 
It's a chicken-and-egg situation. Raise the PSC and you'll draw the ire of the Malaysian public, Tony Fernandes, and those who want everything to be like SIN/SQ but do not want to pay SG prices; keep the PSC at a low level and you'll get the walkways being turned into bazaars and second-rate shopping malls rather than Jewels with the world's largest indoor waterfall..

Edited by Chris Tan, 28 January 2019 - 12:41 PM.


#7 KK Lee

KK Lee
  • Platinum Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 28 January 2019 - 01:45 PM

Both T1 and T2 at KUL were designed and built like previous gomen policy; not operation efficient e.g. energy saving, PSC include hidden subsidy to ERL, etc. There is only so much one could improve on user friendliness, operation efficiency, etc.

 

For long term cost saving and operation efficiency, it may be more financially feasible to build new terminals and demolish existing.



#8 Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Mohd Suhaimi Fariz
  • Platinum Member
  • 2,564 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 07:13 AM

https://youtu.be/wdU1WTBJMl0

This is how an airport earns revenue.

So, do you all think that KUL is able to earn the revenue needed to make it into a Changi with the amount of low yielding passengers and airlines that's flying into KUL today?

#9 jani

jani
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,562 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 08:21 AM

KUL makes a lot of money.. The difference is that KUL needs to support some 35 other airports in Malaysia....



#10 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 11,242 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 10:27 AM

KUL makes a lot of money.. The difference is that KUL needs to support some 35 other airports in Malaysia....

About time to get rid of this subsidy mentality.... 



#11 Samuel Chy

Samuel Chy

    BKI impostor

  • Platinum Member
  • 4,204 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 11:19 AM

About time to get rid of this subsidy mentality.... 

 

for those main airport like PEN, BKI, KCH, LGK shall not be a problem. but for rural airport might be a bit hard, especially those in Sabah and Sarawak... 



#12 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 11,242 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 11:37 PM

for those main airport like PEN, BKI, KCH, LGK shall not be a problem. but for rural airport might be a bit hard, especially those in Sabah and Sarawak... 

Agree - govt. should remove these airports from MAHB and put them under CAAM again. Operate the airports on limited hours. Close them when no flights are scheduled.



#13 jani

jani
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,562 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 11:10 AM

If govt has to operate those airports again, you - the taxpayer - would be subsidizing them.

 

An airport is most of the time a service to the people and needs to be subsidized.



#14 KK Lee

KK Lee
  • Platinum Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 09:09 PM

Rural airports in Sabah and Sarawak are commercially not feasible. It should be under local authority jurisdiction so resources could be shared. With airport under local authority jurisdiction, it would encourage them to attract more traffic.

#15 jani

jani
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,562 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:54 AM

Local authorities can work however they want with the airport operator to attract traffic. It's a win-win situation for both. Not sure what's the difference?

 

Whilst in the current model, KUL suffers because not all profits can be ploughed back, I personally feel its a good model for all airports to be sustained.

 

Local authorities are better off spending their money on other needs, and shouldn't worry about operating an airport.



#16 Amirul Mazlan

Amirul Mazlan
  • Gold Member
  • 534 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:06 AM

In Malaysia context as jani explain, its better to have functioning, no bling airport like KUL as long as it can subsidize other small airports as well.

I dont want CAAM to run airports. Its best to award them to private entity like how MMC being given definite lease of JHB. Im sure there are interested parties who are more than willing to do BOT model for PEN and BKI.

Saves MAHB and Government a lot of trouble

#17 flee

flee
  • Platinum Member
  • 11,242 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 04:00 PM

The problem with East Malaysia is that land infrastructure is so poor that there is a need for air transport and RAS subsidies. There will be no need for RAS services and small airports if a good railway network is built to serve the major towns in East Malaysia. So the government can choose between building railways or airways. Either way, govt. still needs to invest on these infrastructure projects.

 

If govt has to operate those airports again, you - the taxpayer - would be subsidizing them.

 

An airport is most of the time a service to the people and needs to be subsidized.

Yes, it is OK if the govt. subsidises directly (like on the RAS services) or via airport operations. 

 

MAHB merely uses this excuse for the poor state of KLIA but does not pro-actively tackle the root cause of the issues. Taking non performing airports off their hands will simplify accountability and be less of a distraction.

 

They can then focus on making the commercially viable airports great and compete with the best in the world.



#18 BC Tam

BC Tam
  • Platinum Member
  • 7,341 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 08:37 PM

The problem with East Malaysia is that land infrastructure is so poor that there is a need for air transport and RAS subsidies. There will be no need for RAS services and small airports if a good railway network is built to serve the major towns in East Malaysia. So the government can choose between building railways or airways. Either way, govt. still needs to invest on these infrastructure projects.

I won't touch on Sarawakian part of EM, but at the Sabah side, my guess would be that upkeep cost of a "good railway network" serving "the major towns" may prove to be comparable, or even more expensive than the RAS subsidies. Not taking into account yet capex necessary to build those tunnels under the Crocker Range  :D



#19 Alif A. F.

Alif A. F.
  • Platinum Member
  • 1,307 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 09:43 PM

MAHB better off focusing on KLIA. Afterall, it is company's jewel.. Other major airports should be left to be managed by separate companies like Senai JHB. Then, there will be chance for these secondary airports to grow their potential.

#20 Craig

Craig
  • Gold Member
  • 527 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 04:33 PM

Agree - govt. should remove these airports from MAHB and put them under CAAM again. Operate the airports on limited hours. Close them when no flights are scheduled.

 

 

Rural airports in Sabah and Sarawak are commercially not feasible. It should be under local authority jurisdiction so resources could be shared. With airport under local authority jurisdiction, it would encourage them to attract more traffic.

 

That's almost like robbing Peter to pay Paul, no? Money still have to come out from somewhere. Do you want a local authority say Kudat Municipal Council operate Kudat airport? Where are they going to get the money from? Kudat residents?

 

The problem with East Malaysia is that land infrastructure is so poor that there is a need for air transport and RAS subsidies. There will be no need for RAS services and small airports if a good railway network is built to serve the major towns in East Malaysia. So the government can choose between building railways or airways. Either way, govt. still needs to invest on these infrastructure projects.

 

Yes, it is OK if the govt. subsidises directly (like on the RAS services) or via airport operations. 

 

MAHB merely uses this excuse for the poor state of KLIA but does not pro-actively tackle the root cause of the issues. Taking non performing airports off their hands will simplify accountability and be less of a distraction.

 

They can then focus on making the commercially viable airports great and compete with the best in the world.

Sure. Let's all blow up more mountains and make our rainforests more fragmented and accessible to illegal logging/poaching. You do realize that some towns in the interiors aren't accessible  by roads - only via rivers or planes? And while we are at it, let's invite more Chinese companies to invest in Malaysia so we'd be indebted to them and open up our ports and land for their use.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users