Letters
by J Chan
The storm that is generated by the government’s decision to give the go-ahead to the Sime Darby-AirAsia consortium to build a brand new airport at Labu continues to blow unabated.
On the one side is a government GLC, Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) which is being accused by AirAsia of not being able to meet AirAsia’s needs of no-frills service, and yet attempting to charge AirAsia “exorbitant” landside charges.
On the other side is MAHB which, through its website, defends its record of meeting clients’ expectations, and asserting that airport charges are being set by the Government, not by the airport operator.
What the public is inclined to accept is that the present LCCT is in a shambles, and is probably on a par with some domestic Indian airports.
MAHB defends this, as they have spent RM 170 million to build a new extension, which is now partially opened, and they say that the upgraded LCCT should be able to cater for up to 10 million passengers per year until 2013. After that, MAHB says that they have plans to build another terminal that is contiguous with the KLIA main terminal, and that this terminal could be ready by 2013.
AirAsia says that this is baloney, for MAHB have never really delivered commitments on time (they point to the current state of affairs at LCCT as an example) and that any delays would negatively impact AirAsia’s business model.
AirAsia defends the Labu airport proposal as a “must have” for the airline’s long term viability. It will have 100 narrow-body and wide-body aircraft by 2014, and they need gates and parking spaces.
AirAsia is so desperate that they are willing to spend money to build the Control Tower, CIQ facilities, the KTM extensions and the ERL extension without the government spending a single sen. They also say that the road connections will also be built by the private sector. This prima facie is a good deal for the government, and hence the EPU has issued the go-ahead letter to Sime Darby.
However, the more relevant questions to ask is whether this project is good for the rakyat in the long run, and whether this project is consistent with the country’s air transport policy.
The KLIA masterplan was conceived during the Mahathir era, and had proposed that KLIA be built on a modular basis to eventually cater for 100 million passengers per annum.
The masterplan talked about connectivities, both airside and landside, and eononomies of scale to avoid duplication of certain services.
The ultimate objective was to build a transport hub to rival Changi and Bangkok’s new airport. Today, only one-third of KLIA’s allocated landbank is used, and hence expansion around KLIA is not a constraint.
To say that “not a single sen of the rakyat’s money will be used” in the construction of Labu airport is misleading, for there is socio-economic impact on air travellers, and on the people living around the airport site.
Each time a new airport is built, you uproot people and you affect the ecology of the area. Heathrow’s third runway took 10 years for approval.
The Labu airport took less than a year for the EPU to approve, although AirAsia claims on its website that an “extensive and in-depth study has conducted by the government”.
Then there is duplication which by its very nature is a waste of resources. Take taxi and bus transport. Each terminal (KLIA, Subang, LCCT) now has its own “exclusive” taxi service. Connectivity between KLIA and LCCT is so bad that buses run hourly, and taxis charge you RM30 to get rrom KLIA to LCCT and vice versa.
We can assume that Labu will have its own exclusive taxi and bus service. Labu airport will need a new set of air traffic controllers, a new set of CIQ personnel, a new set of public security measures.
AirAsia has bravely said that they are even willing to put these personnel under the payroll, which is commendable, but of course not practical as these people have a duty of care to the rakyat and not to AirAsia.
The Transport Minister, Dato Seri Ong Tee Keat had said about 10 days ago that the Labu airport proposal was approved by the cabinet, and not by his ministry alone.
He then went on to tell reporters to direct further questions at the Ministry of Finance as the approval letter was issued to Sime Darby, a GLC.
This is clearly an outright abrogation of responsibility by the Minister who is supposed to be in charge of Air Transport Policy, and Aviation Policy.
If we all recognise that AirAsia needs to have its own terminal, and that MAHB is by its very nature a reactive rather than a pro-active agency, then the solution is quite obvious.
Let AirAsia build its terminal at KLIA. Kennedy Airport in New York has different airlines operating different terminals but using common airside facilities.
The KLIA masterplan envisages the creation of an underground driverless train link between the current terminal and future terminals. This should be expedited. There should be free shuttle bus services between the terminals to be paid for by the terminal operators.
This is the time for the Transport Minister to show some leadership, and not abrogate responsibility to other ministries.
This is the time to demand that AirAsia and MAHB sit down to discuss what is best for the traveller and for the country.
This is the time to demand that both protagonists stop the cyberwar that is making us the laughing stock in the region.