PaulKarl

Putting politics and corporate ethics aside and speaking only from a passenger experience point of view, I don't see what the fuss is about.

I concur that it's grossly inconvenient to have one international airport and one domestic airport servicing the same city. It's unforgiveable (and unfathomable) that there aren't free shuttle buses running between BKK and DMK every fifteen minutes.

That being said, the allocation of flights between BKK and DMK make the transfer inconvenience more hypothetical than real.

According to the printed Thailand Airline Timetable (the web site is www.thailandairlinetimetable.com), almost every route serviced through DMK is also serviced through BKK.

Specifically, both airports operate flights -- on TG as well as other carriers -- to and from Chiang Mai (CNX), Chiang Rai (CEI), Hat Yai (HDY), Krabi (KBV), Nakhon Si Thammarat (NST), Phuket (HKT), Surat Thani (URT), Ubon Ratchathani (UBP) and Udon Thani (UTH). Generally, the flights through BKK are spaced throughout the day, although there are a few routes with only one or two BKK flights (e.g., NST has a single 06:45 BKK departure).

You're stuck with Don Mueang only if you want to fly from the Bangkok metro area to Khon Kaen (KKC), Loei (LOE), Phitsanulok (PHS) or Trang (TST). These cities are not primary destinations for international travellers.

BTW, when I have raised this issue with Thais, almost every Thai (that has an opinion on the matter) preferred DMK to BKK on the grounds that DMK is easier and cheaper to travel to and from by ground transportation.

Yet the Thais who prefer DMK -- and let's not forget that locals are subsidizing much of this with their tax baht -- get the shaft with regard to those domestic routes which are only serviced from BKK. Bangkokers have no choice but to shlep out to the undeveloped fields of Samut Prakan Province if they want to fly to Buriram (BFV), Hua Hin (HHQ), Koh Samui (USM), Lampang (KBV), Nakhon Phanom (KOP), Nan (NAW), Narathiwat (NAW), Roi Et (ROI), Sakhon Nakhon (SNO), Sukhothai (THS) or Trat (TDX).

Granted, the situation would become intolerable were there to be a wholesale migration of domestic flights from BKK to DMK. But with flights divided between the airports as they currently are, inconvenience to transferring passengers is minimized.

Now everyone take a time out and read my blog (www.knifetricks.blogspot.com).:)

Soju

I completely disagree with your post. THAI's move to DMK is very inconvenient to many passengers.

I randomly chose Chiang Rai, a popular tourist destination, to look at THAI's schedule of flights from there to Bangkok:

CEI-BKK 15:55-17:10
CEI-DMK 11:20-12:40
CEI-DMK 20:05-21:20

So if you have an international flight out of Thailand anytime before 18:00 and are coming from Chiang Rai, you have no way to take a direct flight on THAI to BKK unless you arrive the day before and overnight in Bangkok. I imagine a similar situation exists to other destinations as well, though I didn't bother to check.

If you're coming from UTH, KKC, UBP, or PHS, there is no way at all to connect on a direct flight on THAI to BKK.

Your argument that there are other carriers simply isn't an option for many. There are multiple reasons for this. One being that the other carrier is Air Asia, which has a very bad reputation for being late, and you stand the chance of missing your flight and Air Asia will do nothing to compensate you for your loss. Also no interlining or transfer desks means more inconvenience if you do decide to use them. Also much lower baggage allowances means passengers coming for a long vacation with a lot of bags will pay huge surcharges for overweight luggage. Another reason is that many passengers purchase the domestic portion of their travel together with the international ticket, giving them several advantages such as no or very little extra cost for adding on the domestic extension, and no problem in getting a refund or changing their travel dates for most tickets. Whereas with Air Asia there is a very good chance you won't be able to change and/or cancel the ticket unless you want to lose all or most of the money you paid for the ticket. No frequent flier miles and no lounges are another reason.

Thus, IMHO, your argument that "the allocation of flights between BKK and DMK make the transfer inconvenience more hypothetical than real." is totally incorrect. In fact just the opposite is true. In reality it is much more inconvenient than it may appear to someone just looking at the airline timetables without taking into account the realities of the situation. I can understand how someone who doesn't travel with International to Domestic connections would come to the same conclusion you did, but to anyone who does it is easy to see just how very inconvenient it is.

Your other premise that Thais prefer DMK may be correct, but the reasoning that it's easier/cheaper to get to isn't fully correct. I've traveled to/from DMK and BKK a huge number of times and while DMK is a bit closer physically to central Bangkok than is BKK, the time spent via a taxi is almost identical, with the slight nod going to BKK. The access roads around BKK are much more convenient and less congested than is the access to DMK. THAI does provide a free shuttle service from Lad Phrao to DMK, so if you speak to a Thai they may consider that DMK is easier/cheaper to get to because of this, but this is not because of anything due to the infrastructure/location of DMK, but rather THAI's decision to promote DMK over BKK, as part of their apparent campaign to win the hearts of Thais in preferring DMK over BKK. DMK is also much less crowded than domestic BKK was prior to the move, so many would also see this and falsely assume DMK was more convenient. As to the cost, an incorrect assumption by the Thais you've asked that it is cheaper, at least based on my experience (unless you use the free THAI shuttle). A bus from Suvarnabhumi costs 34 baht, the same as from DMK. A taxi is almost the same. Being DMK is a couple of kilometers closer the meter could be marginally less, but if traffic is heavy that minute savings might be erased. Now of course it depends on which Thais you're asking. If they live nearby to DMK, then obviously it would be much faster/cheaper/convenient for them, but this is simply not the case for Bangkokians as a whole. It has been reported on many occasions that a majority of the airport workers live near DMK, so if the Thais you're asking are airport/airline workers, rather than actual passengers, then naturally they'd give the answer that you've been hearing. If you feel I'm wrong in my analysis, then feel free to post some actual numbers showing how someone can save any significant time or money with DMK as opposed to BKK. Maybe they're using some routes or transportation methods I'm not familiar with.

I suspect that Thais do prefer DMK over BKK, but not for logical reasons. Due to nostalgia, familiarity, bad experiences (personal or reports by others) due to problems at the opening of BKK, or due to not thinking through logically the realities of the situation they may prefer DMK and so when asked may just give the reason that it's cheaper and easier to get to because that is a simple answer.

Overall I don't think Bangkokians really care if they use DMK or BKK for domestic travel. I know I wouldn't if I lived there. It is pretty much a toss-up between the two. They may say they prefer one when asked, but in reality it isn't really of much significance. Most when asked would certainly have their preference, but unless you lived nearby to one or the other, you'd likely choose your flight based on the schedule and airline, not on the location. Had AoT decided to allow Air Asia to move all their operations to DMK, and had THAI decided to stay put at BKK, and offered a free shuttle from the city to BKK, there would be no reason I could see for any TG passengers (except those living near DMK) to prefer DMK over BKK.

ThaiTaff

You can say various cities are main provincial or not.

There are many international businesses with provincial production facilities placed in these towns which makes reaching them and connecting in and out extremely problematic. Then measuring the amount of local hotel, conference, local govt, tourist and business traffic that occurs thru these "provincial airports" the decision to move 100% to DMK is horrendous.

Thai Airways has an effective monopoly in servicing these towns, and now there is no way to get out internationally to other parts of Asia without staying overnight in BKK. Domestic fares have rocketed up in recent times, while services are going down. The flights to these provincial cities are generally very busy. Where I live, there are 3 flights per day at the most ridiculous times that it either makes it impossible to attend a 9.00 am meeting in Bangkok or connect out to Singapore at a reasonable hour of the day.

This problem is not just mine in that in many of these provincial cities there are large Thai and international corporations with large production facilities that call management to Bangkok regularly for meetings. Companies are being encouraged to invest up country on one level and then having their infrastructure pulled away on another. Is it coincidence that several of these provincial airports are in Thaksins old political base?

I was in KL the other day and travelled to Kota Baru, which by most peoples standards could be classified as a provincial city. It was served by 9 flights a day from 3 different carriers. I do not know anything of the finances of these airlines, but it seems to me that Thai Airways as the national carrier has an obligation to serve the whole country properly. These provincial towns are suffering great losses in business and business travellers are getting more and more irate with Thai Airways due to their lack of service to the country as a whole.

PaulKarl

I got that feeling.

The necessity of "an international flight out of Thailand anytime before 18:00" is a false premise. There are plenty of international flights out of BKK to which a traveler could connect with the CEI-BKK flight landing at 17:10 (TG131).

Using your scenario, a traveler could connect to AKL (TG989 at 19:40), BAH (GF151 at 18:30), AMS (KL878 at 23:20), CDG (AF173 at 23:05), DEL (TG315 at 18:05), DXB (TG517 at 18:05), DOH (QR611 at 20:10), FRA (BI033 at 22:50), ISB (TG509 at 18:50), HKG (TG602 at 19:00), JFK (TG790 at 00:40), KHI (CX701 at 18:50), LAX (TG794 at 19:40), MEL (JQ030 at 21:00), NRT (JL718 at 22:25), PVG (MU542/TG6652 at 18:50), SIN (TG401 at 19:40), SGN (TG686 at 18:15), SYD (TG995 at 18:15) or TPE (TG636 at 18:15). And that's just looking for non-stops.

Options to your home port of ICN include OZ742/TG6726 (22:30), KE652 (22:45), TG656/OZ6764 (23:30) and TG658/OZ6762 (23:50). If you want to nap or freshen up, the Novotel Suvarnabhumi Airport is two minutes away via free shuttle and will rent you a room for four hours for 2,200 baht (US$63).

Connections exist. There might not be a convenient connection between every Thai airport and every city in the world with more than 1 million people, but plenty of connections exist � even under the hot house scenario you posited.

True. So what? Thai Airways International does not have an obligation to connect every Thai city with an airport to one international hub. The private sector will fill in the gaps. As it is, Thailand is quite well-covered by air routes.

Take 40 minutes or so and transfer from one airline to another, even though it means going through immigration, collecting your bags and checking in again. It's a drag, but a small one. You are acting like THAI's decision to alter a few provincial routes is the end of the world.

Thai AirAsia (FD) is not the only other carrier. Of the flights which depart from BKK and which have corresponding flights which depart from DMK, 22 flights are on AirAsia but 12 others are on different carriers (7 on Thai (TG), 3 on One Two Go (OG) and 2 on Bangkok Airways (PG)). (I am using the May 2007 Thailand-wide printed timetables.)

Perception is lagging behind reality. Objectively, FlightStats (www.flightstats.com) found that 90% of 200 sampled Thai AirAsia flights arrived on time; meanwhile, TG arrived on time only 79% of the time based on 29,136 sampled flights. Subjectively, having flown about half a dozen AirAsia flights throughout the region during the past year, I have always arrived on time. I think you should address the reality of AirAsia, not its "reputation."

The lack of interlining and transfer desk is an inconvenience, one experienced by travellers every day when they land in a capital city with the purpose of flying to an off-the-beaten path destination. The absence of these frills helps AirAsia keep its fares low.

Fine by me. I have been traveling for a solid year with one suitcase and one day pack. The sooner tourists learn to travel light, the better.

In any event, the difference for Y class passengers is only 5 kilograms for non-North American flights (20 kg at TG, 15 kg at FD), which is not a "much lower baggage allowance."

Your accusation of "huge surcharges" is incorrect. On international flights, Thai AirAsia charges an excess baggage fee of 160 baht (US$4.57) per kilogram. Making up the 5-kilo difference with THAI would cost US$22.86, hardly "huge."

Moreover, AirAsia's excess baggage fee is substantially less than that of other carriers. Depending on the route, British Airways charges between US$12.60 (Moscow) and US$57 (Jo-berg) per excess kilo. One excess kilo on KLM costs 20 euros (US$26.77) on an intercontinental flight. I'll take AirAsia's US$4.57 a kilo, thank you very much.

AirAsia tickets are laughably inexpensive. In any event, this argument proves too much, because its logical extrapolation is that the airline which flies you to the international hub should have routes to every possible domestic airport, so that any ultimate destination of your choice could be added to the PNR as a low-cost domestic extension. As I noted above, national carrier or not, THAI has no obligation to connect every airport in Thailand with Suvarnabhumi.

The FT boards are filled with disgruntled passengers of every airline on Earth having problems getting a refund or changing travel dates. I didn't realize that, once THAI re-consolidated to BKK, it would be blessed by the Bodhisattva of Celestial Airline Operations.

At 40 bucks a ticket, I'll take my chances.

Whoop-di-do. FD has low costs � and low fares -- because it doesn't
waste money on such things. Besides, why would you want to accrue and
redeem miles for a one-cabin regional flight that would cost you less than $100 out of pocket anyway? Hang out in a TG lounge or a *A lounge or a
Priority Pass lounge if that's important to you.

Brushing aside your ad hominem, THAI's changes mean travelers may be mildly inconvenienced on a few routes by having to transfer without the benefits of interlined checked baggage. That's about it.

As I stated in my post � and which you did not refute � only four destinations require a physical transfer to DMK, and all four are
relatively obscure Thai cities (Khon Kaen, Loei, Phitsanulok and Trang). For all other routings, you can accomplish everything under Suvarnabhumi's giant roof. Because of BKK's one-building design, you don't even need to move between terminals. If you need to stay overnight, the airport hotel is literally across the street. All things considered, it's a damn convenient set-up.

Look, things are tough all over as we travel the world. I would like to watch bikini-clad Japanese women frolic on the beaches of Okinawa without having to transfer between Tokyo-Narita and Tokyo-Haneda, but that's the way it is. A traveler could get lost in legal limbo like the guy who lives in CDG (and inspired The Terminal), or arrive in Turkmenistan sans luggage (like a friend of mine), or (like another friend of mine) wander Oslo airport loking for his El Al connection only to learn that El Al had ceased servicing the airport several days earlier. On the whole, a non-interlined transfer on a few routes is a balsa-wood cross to bear.

Finally, I will not respond to your diatribe against the Thais except to note that, if Thais prefer Don Mueang, I suspect they have legitimate reasons for doing so and I know for certain that they don't give an elephant's patootie that you think their choice is illogical.

transpac

PaulKarl Thank you for your cogent presentation of the facts surrounding the current domestic flight situation involving both BKK and DMK. Yours is certainly a refreshing perspective aimed at shedding light on the true nature of the situation, presented calmly, rationally and factually.

I think everyone agrees that a single airport would benefit travelers, and that some travelers are inconvenienced by having to make the BKK-DMK shuffle. However, once the decision was made to move a significant number of domestic flights to DMK (made at the highest levels of society, business, government, military and Royal, not by the President of TG, for both 'push' and 'pull' reasons) everyone pitched in to make the best of a potentially bad situation. TG operates the bulk of the domestic flights so was required to move the most flights. They examined the domestic routes least utilized by international-connecting passengers, and chose to move those, along with other destinations still served via BKK.

Sometimes it's best to just let things go and not get too frustrated with the way things work in Thailand. The irrationality of demanding the ouster of the head of a company, based on what appears to be a perceived personal affront and with scant regard to the true facts, may be a sign that the frustration level is reaching a critical point?

jjpb3

I've hardly found a more patronizing tone towards an entire people. Just because one's personal experience doesn't square with other people's preferences ...

pansted00

Stop bashing Soju please . He has put forward some very respectable arguments .
As for Apinan, he is obviosuly a very mediocre Manager and it shows in TG's financial performance , which is far from stellar these days .

ThaiTaff

I am sure that 90% of the people questioned about DMK haven't been back there recently. If was passable before, not anymore.

transpac

I don't think presenting reasoned, logical and rational responses to OP's obstinate diatribe should be considered "bashing"?

I'm guessing that you are unaware of the irony of your post?

The OP initiated this thread with "bashing", extreme and gross disrespect for someone he is completely unfamiliar with, one who clearly has earned great respect. That disrespect continued on to a general insult of Thai people, and to anyone who has chosen to represent an alternative position.

No one has bashed the OP nearly as much as he has bashed others, or upon reflection, himself.

pansted00

"The OP initiated this thread with "bashing", extreme and gross disrespect for someone he is completely unfamiliar with, one who clearly has earned great respect."

What respect are you talking about ?
He may have done good things at TG before landing the top job , but his performance as President of TG is nothing short of lackluster and this cannot be disputed; just look at TG's financial performance.

Soju

PaulKarl,

You seemed to go off on a tangent at times in your rebuttal in talking about how TG has no obligation to remain at BKK, and compared the situation to other airlines/airports around the world. That is not the issue here. The issue here, which you raised in your first post, is one of inconvenience, and whether it is real or only hypothetical.

I agree TG has no obligation to remain at BKK. They can do whatever they want, and they will have to live with whatever positive and/or negative effects that their decisions have on their business. My complaints against TG management are in no way meant to say they have any obligation to me or other customers to stay at DMK. In fact they have been suggesting for some time now that they may spin off all their domestic business. I even posted regarding this in the past that I'd be sad if they did that but that I can't hold it against them if they are truly losing money on those routes and need to sell them off or discontinue them. I don't want to see that happen, and I might think it's not a wise business decision, and maybe I might even complain a bit, but certainly would never demand that they do something out of obligation. Now I do think that their president should be obligated to keep his word and to not lie to customers, but I don't think that is what you were talking about.

I fully realize that there are many other airlines/airports around the world which are much worse than TG and the transfer situation between BKK and DMK. But how is that relevant to TG's decision to move from BKK to DMK? It isn't. The only relevance here is the situation before when TG had all their flights at BKK and now when they are split. It is much more inconvenient now than it was before for some of the passengers and that is the issue.

Now, back to your first post in this thread, you said:
To me, that indicates that you agree with me that needing to transfer between airports is "intolerable". But yet the current situation is "No big deal" and you "don't see what the fuss is about." Being that there are destinations now which can only be done via a transfer, it seems that you are really saying is that you don't fly to those destinations and so you don't see what the big deal is, but if you did have to transfer, then it would be "intolerable". Seems to be a very narrow minded view to me.

I cannot speak for others, but for myself I flew numerous domestic segments last year - probably close to 50. And I flew a number of domestic segments earlier this year. But due to the inconvenience of the transfer to DMK I will likely not fly any more domestic segments this year, and none to very few next year. The inconvenience / time factor is enough to push it over the edge for me and make the entire trip not worthwhile. Most of my trips were only for the weekend as it was, and with having to transfer between DMK and BKK it means I can no longer make the connection I used to make and so have to leave much earlier in the day. It means the difference between a weekend trip becoming a one-day trip and in my mind it means it's no longer worth it. Everyone's situation is different but I'm sure there are plenty others just as inconvenienced if not more than me. It isn't "the end of the world" for my life in general, but it certainly is end of the world for my domestic TG travels.

I refuse to fly Air Asia for a number of reasons, not the least of which that I cannot depend on them being on-time and/or not canceling their flight I need. Regardless of what flightstats may have reported, they have been late much more often than they've been on-time for the route that I would need, and many times their flight has been canceled altogether. TG's flight, when they were using BKK, was never so late that I had to worry about making a connection, and I've never seen them cancel the flight. They have enough planes so that they can rotate in another plane when there's a problem. Air Asia apparently cannot. My job is critical and I must make my connections. Air Asia might be acceptable for some who are just flying for leisure and don't have a serious issue with must-make connections, but they are not acceptable for me. BTW, the flightstats you quote were based on only 200 flights. Also you didn't state if it is known what time of day those samples were taken from. If they were early flights, then they are likely accurate. If they are the last flight of the day, which is when I'd need to use them, their on-time record on my particular route is absolutely horrible. I have plenty of experience, based on a couple flights myself, many flights by my wife and her family/friends, and by seeing their actual flight times while waiting for a TG flight. My sampling of FD on my route at my time is almost certainly a much higher sample than flightstats for that same route and time, being they only have 200 samples over all of FD's routes, and a 90% on-time statistic in my case is totally laughable. There is nothing subjective about that, being my sampling is higher than flightstats'. But certainly I cannot speak for the same being true on all FD's routes and times.

I don't have the time now to respond to your post point-by-point, but a few additional comments:

As you, I don't typically have an issue with luggage, being I travel very light. But I get 50 kgs. luggage allowance when flying TG with my gold card. If I connected to FD flights for domestic travel with that amount of luggage, based on your numbers, the overweight charges for 35 kgs on a round trip would come to 11,200 baht or US$320. I would call that very significant.

Last time I checked, there is no way to use the TG or any *A lounge when flying FD. Please let me know how you manage that.

There may be lots of connecting flights after 18:00, but the whole issue we are talking about is one of convenience. If I want to be on a 12:00 flight to someplace, and I can no longer make the connection I used to, it means I'm inconvenienced. Or if I have to put up with transferring from DMK to BKK to make the connection it means I'm inconvenienced. Of course a connection is still possible. Nobody is saying connections are no longer possible. But for some they are much more inconvenient than they used to be, or possible to make a connection but not possible to arrive in time for a meeting or other appointment. Your listing of international flights departing after 18:00 is totally meaningless without taking into account an individual's travel requirements.

My point is that there are passengers being significantly inconvenienced by the move, for various reasons, many of which I stated. You are happy to use Air Asia. You don't need to fly to KKC. But you are just that - "you". You are not me, and you are not other travelers. You may not be inconvenienced by the move but that does not mean that others are not.

That is truly a very simplistic view of things. I really don't know how to respond. I think we are on completely different wavelengths of thinking if you honestly believe that and I don't really think anything I can say will change your opinion. I would challenge you to stand in front of the BKK terminal building and interview passengers getting off the 555 bus from DMK and ask them their opinions. I think you might be shocked.

Soju

I am truly sorry if my comments came off as seeming to be an attack on Thai people. It was in no way meant to be. I am married to a Thai lady and have a great deal of respect for Thailand, the Thai people, and their culture. I do not think there is anything unique about the Thai people to cause them to prefer DMK over BKK for "illogical" reasons. I think Americans, Europeans, or any other people in the same position would do the same. It is just human nature to make illogical reasoning at times. I was not trying to be critical of them for thinking that way, or anything wrong with preferring DMK over BKK. I was just trying to say that if they thought everything out thoroughly and logically they might not feel the same way. Again my apologies for my post coming off sounding like something other than what I intended.

Soju

Transpac, I completely agree that I started this thread with extreme disrespect for someone I am unfamiliar with. The reason being is that the very same person has shown extreme and gross disrespect for me and other TG customers in his public comments. I realize you have a great deal of respect for this same person, and so are likely very offended by my comments. I'm not quite sure what your connection is to Apinan and why you feel he is someone who has earned great respect. Perhaps you have some personal or professional relationship with the man. I do welcome your opinions and do not mean for my posts to be in anyway a personal attack on you. I appreciate your knowledge and your contributions to this board. We obvious have totally opposite views on this issue but I hope that fact doesn't affect our opinions of each other with respect to other topics. This thread seems to be getting very personal with respect to the members of this board so perhaps it's time to tone things down a bit on all sides.

ThaiTaff

By the way, the best way to get a taxi at DMK if there is a queue is to walk out onto Vibhvadi Rangsit and flag one down. Done it about 10 times now, always get a taxi within 5 mins, no surcharge, no problem with metering.

Havent done it in the rain, but pack a brolly and it shouldn't be too much hassle.

MegatopLover

Because I've seen soju post in this forum extensively, I read his comment in the vein in which they were intended. Going back, though, I can see how they could be interpreted in a different, offensive, way. I have no doubt that soju did not intend to insult Thais. Similarly, I don't think soju launched an ad hominem attack on PaulKarl. The "you" that PaulKarl took as a personal attack seems to have been intended generally, meaning a person who doesn't connect domestic-to-international much, not any specific person.

Now, before a moderator comes in and locks this thread and deletes a lot of posts, how about we all dial it back a bit. A robust discussion is fine and more than welcome. Let's all take the higher road together and not get into a tit-for-tat.