We've moved to http://myshinshin.blogsome.com

So the final decision is made. No, it is not Subang.

On Wednesday, February 23rd 2005, the Cabinet has decided once and for all, that the new dedicated Low-Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) would be built in Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) and not the Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Airport (SAAS) in Subang.

Many would argue that Subang is better, it makes sense. KLIA is far, transport is expensive, why pay KLIA Express RM 35 to catch an AirAsia flight that costs you just RM 0.99 (Excluding the RM 16 airport tax) ? Subang is closer, facilities are there, cheap, save time, etc.

Even I was seduced to side with this argument.

Barisan Nasional's intransparency certainly doesn't help. We have no access to figures such as the exact construction cost for LCCT in KLIA and Subang (approximate figures, yes), the annual cost of maintenance, difference in traffic volume forecast between an LCCT in Subang and an LCCT in KLIA. The clause in government's contract with Express Rail Link Sdn Bhd (ERLSB), that it would never re-open Subang airport, is bemusing, as if they wanted to hand ERL more profit.

By the way, AirAsia is the biggest no-frill airline in Asia, as well as the only homegrown. Therefore, it is posed to be the biggest beneficiary of a new LCCT, no matter where it is, but more so if it is in Subang.

Let's look at the arguments of Tony Fernandez, AirAsia CEO. He was reported saying that the Subang's proximity to KL downtown and passengers' convenience to travel to Subang are not his main concerns. His main concern was, Subang was cheaper for AirAsia to operate.

Which is true. No-frill airlines (LCCs) shy away from giant international airports and operate from less-crowded secondary airports closer to town center, and that's the case all over the world in order to cut cost.

Tony's arguments are, firstly, KLIA's two runways are crowded, and waiting longer in the taxiways means burning more fuel unnecessarily, sometimes as high as 20% of their total fuel bill. Secondly, the KLIA runways were designed for bigger jets, hence the surface is rougher, and wears out the tyres of AirAsia's sweetie cutie Boeing 737s faster. It's all about cost.

I really sympathise with AirAsia's tyres. In business, it's about cutting cost and maximising profit. An LCCT in Subang helps to achieve AirAsia's vision in maintaining its leading position in Asia, and as a colleteral, promote Malaysia as a great tourist destination.

However, there's something missing here. Who will be benefitted the most, and who is going to foot the bill, if LCCT is built in either KLIA or Subang ?

If it is in KLIA, it will create a bigger passenger turnover, more connectivity of flights and more activities for KLIA. Convenience for those transfering from blood-sucking "full service" airlines (eg Malaysia Airlines) to LCCs and vice versa, and hence, promote tourism. There will also be savings in the form of maintenance personnels and equipments, and sparing Subang Jaya folks the frequent nightmare of noise pollution.

On the other hand, if the LCCT is in Subang, no-frill airlines and their passengers will benefit. But at what cost ? That Kuala Lumpur will be robbed of a bigger passenger volume and flight connectivity. That it will cost Malaysia its fair chance of becoming a formidable force to compete head-on with Singapore and Bangkok as the top regional aviation hub. And the extra jobs that could be created when there are more passengers in KLIA and more tourists coming to Malaysia.

Let's not forget that even after construction of LCCT, it is the government that will have to subsidise its maintenance. Airport tax, rental of shops and parking charges alone are insufficient to cover it. So, if government has to fork out taxpayers' money, would it better be spent for the nation's and the people's interest, or the individual company's ?

Where "Two Airports System" works, as cited by Tony, they have much higher volumes. As pointed out by Minister of Transport Chan Kong Choy, London with annual volume of 95 million passengers can support four airports, but KL with only 22 million cannot afford to support two.

If AirAsia really believes in Subang, why don't they build and maintain an LCCT in Subang ? They can even charge the other LCCs operating there. If they think it's government's duty to provide infrastructure, they should be reminded that government has decided for the sake of the nation, it will be in KLIA. You still insist that Subang is better, go ahead DIY. It's not unlike choosing between national or independent schools.

The only drawback of KLIA is it's distance from city. Yes, driving pollutes the air, but with KLIA Express, it should not be an issue anymore. Those who live close to public transport networks should really consider utilising them, while government should accelerate the construction of more transit lines to serve more Malaysians.

The government missed the chance of upgrading the nation's transport backbone with the infinite deferment of Padang Besar - Johor Bahru double tracking and electrification. It also undermined Malaysia's competitiveness by driving away our much-needed bright minds with the syok sendiri system called "meritokrasi". But this time, I am all for the decision to locate the LCCT in KLIA. National interest should always come first.

p/s : Those who argue Subang's facilities are still intact please take note. Terminal 1 has been demolished recently...

 

Shin merepek ... 2/25/2005 12:59:00 PM ... ... ... Vote