low cost airport
 

what do you think if Bangkok will have 2 airports? Suvannabhumi for conventional airlines and Donmeuang for No-frills.

At least one LCC, AirAsia, has been saying that they are concerned about their operating costs being too high at the new BKK and that they think Don Maung should be re-opened as a LCC facility. I don't think it will happen; there have been plans announced for a new LCC terminal at Suvarnabhumi, and other interests have their eyes on developing Don Muang. Emulation of many things Singaporean seems in vogue at the moment, so expect the LCC terminal at Suvarnabhumi will win out. (What is the situation at KUL, I think there may be a separate field for some LCC's?)

If the new airport is as bad as people are saying (and the lounges take any longer to open), perhaps they should reopen Don Muang as the main airport, and use the new BKK as the LCC one! :D

I don't really use the LCCs, so it wouldn't really affect me much if they did move. If I did use them though, I wouldn't want them to move as it would be very inconvenient to travel across town to catch a connecting flight. If they moved, it would mean less traffic at Suvarnabhumi, which would be a positive point. But it might mean slightly fewer passengers flying on the remaining non-LCCs, owing to not being able to easily transit from LCC to non-LCC, which would be a negative as more passengers mean more competition which should equal lower prices. I think having a LCC terminal at Suvarnabhumi is the best solution, but having them move back to Don Muang would certainly be acceptable, either as a temporary or permanent solution.

Plenty of room at BKK for expansion:

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/bangkok/

SUBSEQUENT PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION

Long-term plans for four runways flanking two main terminals and two satellite buildings with a combined capacity capable of handling up to 100 million passengers and 6.4 million tonnes of cargo a year are on the drawing board.

The second phase of airport expansion involving the construction of a satellite building south of the main terminal is expected to begin 3–5 years after the completion of the first main terminal.

The third phase of the airport project should take place between 2010 and 2015, when the first passenger terminal will be expanded and a second midfield satellite built, increasing capacity to 73 million passengers annually.

Between 2015 and 2020 a second passenger terminal and fourth runway is expected to be built, lifting capacity to 95 million passengers, followed thereafter by an expansion of the second passenger terminal to allow the airport to reach the expected maximum capacity of 100 million passengers a year.

The IATA is in favour of expansion plans being brought forward, as it believes that, based on current traffic growth, the airport will be short of gates by 2007. It also has concerns about the retail concession layout, noting that the airport's terminal is slightly larger than that of Hong Kong International Airport's, but that the area allocated for retail is only half that of Hong Kong.

Montreal airport case?
 

Your comment reminds me of the sorry tale of Montreal's Mirabel Airport, which opened up in 1975, for international flights, while Dorval was limited to domestic and transborder traffic. Your abovementioned scenario happened almost exactly as you said in Montreal over the years.

Mirabel's biggest problem was its distance from the city centre (some 40 miles). Connecting domestic flights would have required something like 3 to 3.5 hours to connect. A planned rail link and additional highways (which would have mitigated the distance issue) were never implemented due to lack of funds and some political wragling. It quickly became known as a white elephant, and passenger traffic never exceeded 3 million per year (its planned max capacity was 50 million). In time, much international traffic to Canada switched to Toronto---various reasons such as the loosening of the Canadian requirement that Montreal be the gateway for transatlantic flights, economic flight stemming from the rise of pro-separatist sentiments, as well as the inconvenience, have been cited.

Eventually, all passenger traffic was switched back to Dorval (24 km from city centre), while Mirabel only handled some charter, and then, only cargo flights. I heard Mirabel is now slated to be developed as an amusement park!

Kind of a sad result! Interesting history though! Thanks for that info, I had no idea!!! ^

another comparable case is when new KLIA=KUL opened and the domestics [no AirAsia even at that time!] stayed at old Subang. No train then yet. This proved so confusing that whithin 1 year all flights were moved to the then white elefant as KLIA was thought of.
And now KLIA has its own, brand new, low-cost (mainly AirAsia) terminal miles away from the big main terminal and with an awful hourly connectioon at best (besides the taxis)
But I dont think there is an overwhelming nr of pax doing transits from mainline to lowcost at BKK, plus that about any destination of the current lowcosts can also be reached by the classic airlines. I think that tourists using Thaild as a base to visit other neighbour countries (on lowcost) probably spend the od days in BKk for a visit/get visa etc. Interesting though how AOT would set the tax: hitherto its 500/new 700 for ANY Intern. dep. at ANY Thai airport: again a case for differing a little.

As the topic of this thread has to do with airports in Bangkok and has nothing to do with Thai Airways or the Royal Orchid Plus frequent flier program, the new home for this thread is now the Thailand forum.

Regards,

Canarsie
Senior Moderator