Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Tourism downturn: Bridge between Koh Samui and mainland could bring in more tourists

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, CGW said:

Yep, I had the pleasure of staying in Samui 1989-1991 it was near to paradise! But the Bangkok air monopoly and the arrival of McD signalled the beginning of the downfall, - shame :sad:

McRipoff arrived a good decade later than that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Granting BA the monopoly on Samui (do not even mention the Thai flights, that were arranged with an agreement to always charge MORE than BA) was one of the single worst decisions any administration has ever made. And allowing them to continue running this monopoly, and getting away with skinning tourists alive with their pricing to Samui, is a felonious crime. Shame on the government for this.

Well as T.I.T. I am sure some gaggle of hiso's is coining in tte envelopes over it!! 😏🙄😏🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Granting BA the monopoly on Samui (do not even mention the Thai flights, that were arranged with an agreement to always charge MORE than BA) was one of the single worst decisions any administration has ever made. And allowing them to continue running this monopoly, and getting away with skinning tourists alive with their pricing to Samui, is a felonious crime. Shame on the government for this.

Its now coming back to bite them. Considering the tourist dollars coming in to the island over the last couple of decades the amount spent on infrastructure is appalling  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 2:10 PM, webfact said:

His design incorporates a to and from lane for bicycles, he said.

He needs the men in white coats to take him away, as clearly not well. 18km bike ride in that heat carrying a heavy bag or backpack, right :cheesy:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Granting BA the monopoly on Samui (do not even mention the Thai flights, that were arranged with an agreement to always charge MORE than BA) was one of the single worst decisions any administration has ever made. And allowing them to continue running this monopoly, and getting away with skinning tourists alive with their pricing to Samui, is a felonious crime. Shame on the government for this.

I am not sure that anyone granted Bandit Airways a monopoly.

They own the airport. It is a private enterprise and as such does not fall under the control of the government.

Yes there are lots of laws, safety requirements etc etc that the government impose on any airport, but I was under the impression that Bandit Airways can do whatever they like commercially.

As you rightly mention Thai Airways flew here as do at least 4 other airlines, but forcing Bandit Airways to allow the miserable two flights a day only came about after pressure from the Thaksin government who wanted to hold a cabinet meeting here. BA said that TA would never land at their airport and so HM the King, when he was the crown prince, decided to practice take off and landing at Samui in a Thai Airways plane. He was practising for his commercial pilot's licence.

Oops. I mentioned the Thai Airways flights. Sorry.

All other airlines pay higher landing fees. The airport can charge whatever it likes.

It is wrong to blame the government - back then, The government was anti Bandit Airways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Granting BA the monopoly on Samui (do not even mention the Thai flights, that were arranged with an agreement to always charge MORE than BA) was one of the single worst decisions any administration has ever made. And allowing them to continue running this monopoly, and getting away with skinning tourists alive with their pricing to Samui, is a felonious crime. Shame on the government for this.

No one is forcing anyone to fly there, and IMO they are committing a crime by flying, when they could be going by surface. Have they not heard Miss Thunberg's rant?

Seriously, I wish they'd never allowed an airport to be built with a flight path over Chaweng, as it's a disgrace to allow a beautiful beach to be contaminated by low flying planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He needs the men in white coats to take him away, as clearly not well. 18km bike ride in that heat carrying a heavy bag or backpack, right :cheesy:.

The island already has a bicycle lane. It is that white thing painted next to the kerbs, on the ring road (but fading quickly). It varies from .5 meters wide to two meters wide. It is approx. 53 kilometers long.

The problem is that people park on it. Pretty useless as a bicycle/motorbike lane.

A great idea that died through lack of forward thinking.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

I don't see it generating enough extra tourism to pay for itself, much less help Samui. Just what we need, more cars on the road. Getting rid of Bangkok Air's usurious monopoly would be a far better step in the right direction to stimulating tourism, as would allowing other airlines to fly directly to Samui from outside of Thailand, like Phuket, which really benefits from such a policy.

As Samui airport is a private airport, the government restricts the number of flights per day. They have already allowed an increase on the original restriction. It is unlikely that the government would allow another increase.

Anyway, I for one would not want more flights. The 06.00 'wake up' flight is early enough and the 21.40 'go to bed' flight still allows for some peace and quiet. 😎

At least five different airlines fly into Samui at the moment.

The short runway is another thing that limits airlines. Government airports (Phuket/Chiang Mai etc) have longer runways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would need hell of an increase in Tourist to pay for that bridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Granting BA the monopoly on Samui (do not even mention the Thai flights, that were arranged with an agreement to always charge MORE than BA) was one of the single worst decisions any administration has ever made. And allowing them to continue running this monopoly, and getting away with skinning tourists alive with their pricing to Samui, is a felonious crime. Shame on the government for this.

Who built the airport? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

Who built the airport? 

Bangkok Air. They bought half of the land that it is on from a family, the other half the family still holds, collecting rent on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

I am not sure that anyone granted Bandit Airways a monopoly.

They own the airport. It is a private enterprise and as such does not fall under the control of the government.

Yes there are lots of laws, safety requirements etc etc that the government impose on any airport, but I was under the impression that Bandit Airways can do whatever they like commercially.

As you rightly mention Thai Airways flew here as do at least 4 other airlines, but forcing Bandit Airways to allow the miserable two flights a day only came about after pressure from the Thaksin government who wanted to hold a cabinet meeting here. BA said that TA would never land at their airport and so HM the King, when he was the crown prince, decided to practice take off and landing at Samui in a Thai Airways plane. He was practising for his commercial pilot's licence.

Oops. I mentioned the Thai Airways flights. Sorry.

All other airlines pay higher landing fees. The airport can charge whatever it likes.

It is wrong to blame the government - back then, The government was anti Bandit Airways.

If I was informed properly, the government owns the land the Samui airport was built on. So, while the airline owns built and owns the airport, the government maintains the right to determine if a monopoly is in the best interests of the people. But, since that has never been a concern for any Thai administration (except for a few policies of the Thaksin administration) the people suffer under the yoke of this horrific monopoly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

If I was informed properly, the government owns the land the Samui airport was built on.

I believe that you are misinformed. There is a 16-rai piece of land that is owned by the government at the end of the runway near the road to Ban Rak. There is controversy about that piece, as it is protected for water runoff reasons and is registered as state property land from the Treasury Department. The rest of the land, 250 rai, was/is owned by a family who sold half of it to BA and kept the rest, which they rent to BA. BA has a renewable 30-year lease on that portion. My wife knows this family very well and is good friends with the matriarch.

 

As an aside, the following airlines are allowed to operate flights to/from Samui Airport:

Bangkok Airways: Bangkok–Suvarnabhumi, Chengdu, Chongqing, Chiang Mai, Hong Kong, Krabi, Kuala Lumpur–International, Pattaya–U-Tapao, Phuket, Singapore
Berjaya Air: Charter: Kuala Lumpur-Subang
Chengdu Airlines: Chengdu
Lucky Air: Kunming
SilkAir: Singapore
Tibet Airlines: Xi'an

Edited by GalaxyMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...