KUL-LCCT: Bursting at the seams

[Naim 6]

Saturday September 27, 2008

 

Bursting at the seams

 

LONG queues at immigration counters and waiting for more than an hour to collect a checked-in luggage are a common angst for budget airline passengers who arrive at the low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT) in Sepang.

 

Barely three years old and the LCCT is already operating at its full capacity - bursting at the seams, some may define - as a result of the (unforeseen) tremendous growth of budget airline passengers, particularly that of AirAsia group.

 

Besides the AirAsia group, the LCCT also services the Philippine’s Cebu Pacific Airways and Singapore’s Tiger Airways.

 

For the interim comfort of budget airline passengers, Malaysia Airport Holdings Bhd (MAHB) has embarked on an extension plan for LCCT. The extension will increase the annual passenger capacity from the current 10 million to 15 million upon completion in March 2009.

 

According to MAHB senior general manager of operation services Datuk Azmi Murad, the proposal for a new LCCT has been submitted to the government for approval but its location has yet to be determined.

 

“We are still waiting for the government to give us the green light for the project, hence we are not able to confirm when the project will be implemented and completed,” Azmi says.

 

He, however, confirms that the proposed terminal comes with a capacity for 30 million passengers per year, with scope for expansion should the need arise.

 

But AirAsia X Sdn Bhd CEO Azran Osman-Rani feels that MAHB’s expansion plans are too conservative compared to the growth of AirAsia group.

 

“Failure to anticipate the growth of our passenger numbers will result in severe capacity shortage again in the short future,” he says.

 

AirAsia group expects its total passengers to exceed 15 million in 2010 and 28 million by 2014.

 

While the overcrowded situation in LCCT is severe, KLIA, despite its state-of-the-art facilities and award-winning status, is found to be lagging behind its regional rivals, namely Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport and Singapore’s Changi Airport.

 

The trend is partly attributable to national carrier MAS’ capacity trimming, while other regional airlines such as the Emirates, SIA, Etihad and Cathay Pacific continue to expand their operations.

 

In addition, many international airlines that have left KLIA since the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis, such as British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, ANA and Air France, have not returned but have continued to fly to Suvarnabhumi Airport and Changi Airport.

 

According to the Airports Council International, there are currently 105 airlines that fly to Bangkok’s airport, more than 70 airlines to Singapore’s Changi and less than 50 to KLIA.

 

Passenger traffic recorded in 2003 at Suvarnabhumi Airport was 30.2 million, Changi Airport was 24.7 million and KLIA was 17.5 million.

 

In 2007, the numbers rose, with Suvarnabhumi Airport recording a passenger traffic of 41.2 million; Changi Airport 36.7 million and KLIA 26.5 million. Passenger and cargo traffic is a good gauge of an airport’s strength, which is strongly correlated to a country’s economic performance because airport is the heartbeat of a country’s trade and tourism industries.

 

The group founder and AirAsia CEO Datuk Tony Fernandes feels that the AirAsia group’s low-cost business model and growing flight frequencies and destinations are able to draw more passengers to KL hub, which will ultimately boost Malaysia’s economy.

 

“We have a dream to bring in passengers from all over the world to our Kuala Lumpur hub, and we believe we are on the right path to achieving this dream because of what we can offer our passengers.

 

“The unfortunate thing is, our dream is hampered because we do not have a good airport infrastructure to support our plan to make it bigger for Malaysia’s industry,” he says.

 

Therefore, he expresses hope for the airport management sector to be liberalised and open to competition for the benefit of the aviation industry as a whole.

 

In Britain, for instance, the Competition Commission recently issued a provisional report recommending the British Airport Authority (BAA) to sell three of the seven airports under its management.

 

The recommendation is to address competition problems that arise from the monopolistic behaviour of BAA in managing its airports, such as its lack of responsiveness to the needs of its airline customers and lack of initiative in capacity planning.

 

Airports in Malaysia are managed under the monopoly of MAHB, a government-linked company.

 

http://biz.thestar.com.my/bizweek/story.as...amp;sec=bizweek

 

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Airports in Malaysia are managed under the monopoly of MAHB, a government-linked company.

 

I thought Senai is managed by another entity? No??

 

either way at least KLIA gets increased traffic, but unfortunately MTB still looks somewhat quet...

[Tamizi Hj Tamby 1]

I thought Senai is managed by another entity? No??

 

either way at least KLIA gets increased traffic, but unfortunately MTB still looks somewhat quet...

 

Senai is not under MAHB,it's under private entity (If i'm not mistaken).

[Fairul 0]

did anyone spot mistake in the article?

[Sing Yew 1]

did anyone spot mistake in the article?

 

Suvarnabhumi ? 2003 ?

[affendi osman 0]

Can we move back AK's operation to the MTB?

 

Just a stupid suggestion, but indeed we can fully utilized the terminal.

Wing A for MAS, and Wing B for AK or vice versa.

 

 

[prosibu1 0]

Can we move back AK's operation to the MTB?

 

Just a stupid suggestion, but indeed we can fully utilized the terminal.

Wing A for MAS, and Wing B for AK or vice versa.

but the problem is half of the MTB also not enough for Airasia...

even just domestic route

each wing has 15 bays...

max 20? -.-

[Norman 1]

I was at LCCT around 2pm yesterday...

Very similar experience to Puduraya at peak hours..

[KK Lee 5]

 

Believe LCCT designer assumed departure and arrival is spread evenly through out the day and night, departing pax arrive just in time for check-in, ground transportation limited to car and taxi and ensure LCCT is less comfortable than MTB. Hence, the terminal is overly crowded during the peak period.

 

It is rare for journalist in the local MSM offer alternate view or reporting negative news. May be someone on the 4th floor or friend of MoF is mooting idea from Gatwick, to break up MAHB monopoly on airport operation.

 

Competition is always good for consumers. Believe if LCCT is built and operate by another company, the facility will be much better than current states, and more pax will use LCCT than MTB.

 

 

[affendi osman 0]

but the problem is half of the MTB also not enough for Airasia...

even just domestic route

each wing has 15 bays...

max 20? -.-

 

 

but still there are ramp bays around.

and of course can use bus to bus passengers to the plane

[Fairul 0]

till today..i still believe that the LCCT was a last minute decision by the goverment to counter Changi's Budget terminal....the idea of our LCCT only came after Changi came out with theirs..

[Fitri Shukri 0]

Have you guys really been to Puduraya bus station during peak hours/festive season? LCCT is wayyy much better than Puduraya...

[Naim 6]

Have you guys really been to Puduraya bus station during peak hours/festive season? LCCT is wayyy much better than Puduraya...

 

Hehehe ... especially minus the buses' exhaust fumes.

 

[Sandeep G 1]

I still think MAHB/AirAsia are looking at this from the wrong angle...

 

The LCC IS indeed a nightmare.. it's rather haphazard layout and crammed spaces during peak times leaves a lot to be desired. The baggge reclaim halls both international and domestic are crammed with luggage - the conveyor belts themselves looking worse from wear.

 

MAHB should have spent the money it used for developing the present LCCT on upgrading and modifying the Baggage Reclaim system and other vital airport infrastructure at the existing MTB and Sat A buildings.

 

AirAsia should use the MTB/Sat A for their operations - 1 gate supports 2 A320s The remote aprons at the MTB can be further utilised during night stops for the aircraft. Sat A can be used for the vast array of international operations that AirAsia presently has including supporting operations for AirAsiaX's A330 fleet.

 

Even then, we're looking at the MTB/SAT A bursting at the seams as AK plans on handling between 10-15 million pax over the next 2 years. This is where forward thinking should be used and the construction of the Sat B terminal should be completed - learning from the mistakes made in Sat A operations, the Sat B can be redesigned internally and modified to offer a superior mix of aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity. Sat B can THEN be used as a terminal for legacy and full service carriers - MAS may continue to operate from both terminals and if it so desires may construct a new lounge in the Sat B complex. The MTB can actually be extended on the B Apron to include at least 5 more gates - with at least 2 of these providing parking for a single widebody or two narrow body aircraft.

 

The need for a dedicated permanent LCCT should be "shelved" and the airport should concentrate on expansion of present facilities to meet growth needs. The upgrading of present infrastructure and airport systems should take further precedence when considering and planning expansions.

 

The existing facilities need to be supported to the maximum if KLIA is to be a truly world-class hub. Otherwise, it will just end up another messy Subang and Puduraya bus terminus.

[affendi osman 0]

I agree with Sandeep.

 

There is no point of having such a huge terminal, but very empty. Make full use of it!

[KK Lee 5]

 

Conveyor at LCCT is designed for one A320/734 capacity, so is over capacity when more than 2 minibus arrive at about the same time.

 

After renovation at MTB is completed will look like bazaar at satellite. The whole objective of the renovation is to improve duty free sales and rental income. Compared with SIN and BKK, MAHB still have lot to learn aboout products mix and presentation.

 

In Malaysia, huge money is made during construction, hence, people in the power corridor find any reason to build.

 

As MAHB will ensure the new LCCT is inferior and less comfortable than MTB, the public is better serve if the new LCCT is to build and operate by another company. Like proton, it is about time to breakup MAHB monopoly.

 

 

 

 

[kandiah k 0]

I am not trying to be negative here about the future of KLIA but I think if MAHB and the MoT do not plan out the development of the airport soon enough, we will once again loose out to our neighbours. AK may switch its base to BKK, CGK or SIN easily and where will KUL be ? First from the bottom due to inapt and incompetent people running the show. Look at STN (London Stansted) and see how their capacity alone is more than what KUL handles. LCCT obviously is a negative brand by itself, perhaps following SIN to use Budget Airlines Terminal or something much sweeter and comforting ?

 

I must say that MTB is not entirely empty always. It is buzzing with acitivites and now with the renovation for more duty free stores, it must have caught up, only the operators know the answer to that. However, the MTB can still accommodate more aircraft movements than it currently handles as mentioned above by our fellow members. I also feel that the KLIA overal pax movement and capacity should include the Budget Terminal pax as one rather than segregating them as if they were different airports like how some inexperienced journalist do their reporting about aviation in Malaysia.

 

But I must acknolwedge that AK and MH are competing vigorously and that is good for the customers at the end of the day but the respective authorities should take serious action on the development of KUL or we will be the LOOSER, yet again !!!!

 

[reyneo 0]

LCCT obviously is a negative brand by itself, perhaps following SIN to use Budget Airlines Terminal or something much sweeter and comforting ?

I beg to differ. I feel that LCCT sounds so much better than 'Budget Terminal'... which sounds, well very cheap? as compared to some big sounding acronym "The LCCT". Well, in any case, I agree that the LCCT is well over capacity. The last time I was there, I took a D7 flight to Australia and a JQ one back (couple of months ago when JQ was still operating), I could see, first hand the difference between the dead empty MTB and the Overcrowded LCCT!

 

Amenities wise, I feel that the LCCT does better than Changi's budget terminal, at least it has fast food, 2 food courts, among other things. When I flew out of BT, I had to take the shuttle back and forth to the main Terminals just to eat!

 

Actually, heres a thought: Why don't AK propose to design, build and operate its own terminal? That way costs would be kept way down, avoid million dollar price disputes and they can expand according to their ops. Actually, i feel AK (plus D7 of course) may eventually become bigger than MAS (by flights and passengers carried), possibly with an LCCT that is bigger than the MTB! So allowing the terminal to grow as they do would be a win-win situation. No more arguments and complains between AK, MAHB and the government. AK would be directly responsible for itself.

[BC Tam 2]

I beg to differ. I feel that LCCT sounds so much better than 'Budget Terminal'... which sounds, well very cheap?

That is true until you read LCCT in full - LOW COST Carrier Terminal. Now, compared to BUDGET Terminal, which one sounds cheaper ?!

 

Actually, heres a thought: Why don't AK propose to design, build and operate its own terminal? That way costs would be kept way down, avoid million dollar price disputes and they can expand according to their ops

In that case, they're likely to operate out of Subang from temporary tents

Oops, sorry, Dato now lurking around here I believe

[Radzi 2]

A true low cost carrier cannot operate from MTB KLIA.

 

Look at check-in. At MTB, you have common check-in. Baggage goes down the conveyor, sorted out and send to respective aircraft. At LCCT you check-in at the flight's own counter. Baggage goes behind, direct into the trolley and straight into the respective aircraft. No sorting necessary.

[reyneo 0]

That is true until you read LCCT in full - LOW COST Carrier Terminal. Now, compared to BUDGET Terminal, which one sounds cheaper ?!

Well but then again, when was the last time you said, "Hey, I'm going to the Low cost carrier terminal!" Its always "I'm flying off from LCCT." Sounds like a KLIA on its own... but yeah, I'd agree that when broken down, Budget sounds better than Low Cost...

In that case, they're likely to operate out of Subang from temporary tents

Oops, sorry, Dato now lurking around here I believe

Well if they decide to remove airport tax and passenger handling charges, I wouldn't mind flying out of tents.

[KK Lee 5]

 

If symmetry with satellite A can be abandoned, satellite B should be designed to achieve operation efficiency, reduced transit time, connect to MTB and satellite A with walkalator/travelator and accommodate both domestic and international flights. Otherwise, KUL will never have a chance to compete with SIN, BKK and SGN.

 

 

[Seth K 3]

Lee, I like the idea.

Perhaps the whole operations of satellite B(maximize gates/ stand) and half of MTB for AK, so MH can use Satelite A and half of MTB. Not sure if that is economical.