AOT revising Suvarnabhumi’s Bt44bn northern expansion plan

[webfact]

AOT revising Suvarnabhumi’s Bt44bn northern expansion plan

By The Nation

 

 

Airports of Thailand (AOT) is revising its planned Bt44-billion northern expansion of Suvarnabhumi Airport, said AoT president Nitinai Sirismatthakarn.

 

The revision to bring the plan in line with the “new normal” concept is expected to take between one and two months to complete.

 

The new northern terminal will have annual capacity for 30 million passengers.

 

Also to be drawn up are details for projects to extend the existing passenger terminal eastwards and westwards, he added.

 

Nitinai expressed confidence the global aviation sector would return to normal next year when Covid-19 vaccines are expected to become available.

 

The number of passengers at Suvarnabhumi is forecast to return to pre-outbreak levels of 65 million in 2023.

 

Meanwhile, AOT expects to finish construction of Satellite Terminal 1 in 2022, boosting Suvarnabhumi’s annual capacity by 15 million passengers.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/business/30398841

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-12-01

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Flying Saucage]

Well, AOT still doesn't understand that Jurassic Park is not a nice travel destination anymore for foreigners, now as the world understands that the dinosaurs here go ape.

[GinBoy2]

The basic problem with BKK is that for an airport conceived and built in the mid 2000's it only has two parallel runways, which in itself limits capacity. For greenfield planning and build it makes no sense

 

LHR, London Heathrow is the classic example. You can continue to build multiple terminals but at the end of the day it all comes down to runway capacity and how many aircraft can actually be turned. But in LHR's defense it was an airport designed and built in the 1950's &60's. 

To put it into perspective, ORD, Chicago O'Hare has seven operational runways

 

BKK can't shelter behind that it was designed in a previous age. It was conceived to replace DMK as a modern 21st century airport, but was modeled operationally, on something from the 1950's 

Edited December 1, 2020 by GinBoy2

[Searat7]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

The basic problem with BKK is that for an airport conceived and built in the mid 2000's it only has two parallel runways, which in itself limits capacity. For greenfield planning and build it makes no sense

 

LHR, London Heathrow is the classic example. You can continue to build multiple terminals but at the end of the day it all comes down to runway capacity and how many aircraft can actually be turned. But in LHR's defense it was an airport designed and built in the 1950's &60's. 

To put it into perspective, ORD, Chicago O'Hare has seven operational runways

 

BKK can't shelter behind that it was designed in a previous age. It was conceived to replace DMK as a modern 21st century airport, but was modeled operationally, on something from the 1950's 

I remember that the airport has always had capacity to add two additional runways and to me adding the third one should have been the first step of the airport expansion given increased volume (until pandemic) and the quality problems with the first two runways which required rework several times. 

[Bangkok Barry]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

The basic problem with BKK is that for an airport conceived and built in the mid 2000's it only has two parallel runways,

It was conceived in the 1960s but only built in the 2000s. Which goes some way to explaining why almost immediately it was too small for purpose and they had to re-open the old airport to handle to overflow.

[UB40]

It's waste of money. AOT expects 30 million MORE passengers every year?

Sorry, thats ridiculous. There are about 40-50 million less than 2019 now, and they plan 80 million? 

@AOT I pray for rain of brain ... and some calculators 

[orchidfan]

9 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

It was conceived in the 1960s but only built in the 2000s. Which goes some way to explaining why almost immediately it was too small for purpose and they had to re-open the old airport to handle to overflow.

Having worked in aviation traffic Management for over 40yrs. I don't think it was any inability to handle the traffic# at BKK, but the fact that the low cost carriers were not willing to pay the "service charges" there, so moved back to DMK  where fees (and fuel?) were much cheaper .

#HKG where I worked had over 1200 movements a day, and Heathrow 1400 on two parallel runways.

Not a capacity handling capability,  but a cost/fees decision.

[orchidfan]

In addition to my comments above.

BKK handled 39 million passengers in 2019, HKG ,71 million. 

Thinks it's the immigration handling capacity that's the problem as we've all seen the 2 arrival halls full to the back walls and.overflowing. 

[sammieuk1]

30 is enough 31 if I ever decided to come back????

[Bangkok Barry]

2 hours ago, orchidfan said:

Having worked in aviation traffic Management for over 40yrs. I don't think it was any inability to handle the traffic# at BKK, but the fact that the low cost carriers were not willing to pay the "service charges" there, so moved back to DMK  where fees (and fuel?) were much cheaper .

#HKG where I worked had over 1200 movements a day, and Heathrow 1400 on two parallel runways.

Not a capacity handling capability,  but a cost/fees decision.

 

What happened was AOT almost begged Air Asia, by far the dominant low cost airline at the time, to return to DM and the lower cost/fees were the incentive given to make the move back. The new airport might well have been able to handle the traffic, but not the passenger numbers.

[tjo o tjim]

The two extra runways were always in the plan; runway separation is sufficient for simultaneous landings, and the additional two gives you the ability to stage in takeoffs on independent runways. The master plan was for 100 million annual passengers. The current immigration process was not designed into the original terminal though— originally there was almost no queuing area, and fewer than half the stations.