Singapore's Budget Terminal: Why only one confirmed user?
-
It is with great surprise that with the planned opening of Singapore's new budget terminal at Changi Airport, only Tiger airways has plans to move into the facility.
Valueair, Jetstar etc have opted not to transfer operations as yet.
Said Minister of State for Transport Ms Lim Hwee Hua, "The business model of low-cost carriers is also still evolving. As such, some of these carriers may prefer to continue to use Changi's main terminals as it fits in better with their business model, despite the fact that they will have to incur higher operating costs. For example, some carriers currently have arrangements to transfer passengers to other airlines at the main terminals, unlike the typical low-cost carrier, which focuses on end-to-end traffic."
No marketing plan or failed plan to entice budget carriers to use the budget terminal? And if Tiger Airways thumbs down the terminal, will it become another white elephant? It seems unusual that so much is riding on a 'guinea pig' review to ascertain ratings rather than aggressive marketing to attract clients, especially for a multi-million dollar expenditure.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/192969/1/.html
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/95763.asp
http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/airline/archive/2006/01/09/1019.aspx -
What makes me laugh is that they spent money naming the whole thing "Budget Terminal".
It's like the naming exercise for Marina Bay.
Seems like Singapore has so much money that they can afford to throw money at ludicrous exercises.
-
The terminal didn't cost much, its not a real problem.
You will rather have such a terminal in place than not due to the growing budget airline sector. -
I did some checking.
The guy who thought up of "Budget Terminal" won $2K in cash plus a phone.
But that's still much less than the $600K spent on Marina Bay. -
Only 45mil lah. Today earthquake at CAAS liao in the papers[/quote]
-
I guess to some extent what the Minister Yeo Chew Tong said is correct. No venture is viable overnight. Hence only time can tell whether the budget terminal will be a hit, or not.
Yet I believe that the budget terminal will make headway. The marketing may not be that apparent in the media ( I for one, only found out about the budget terminal when I visited Changi Airport ), but with increasing number of people taking budget carriers and as commuters and carriers make low cost their priority, the budget terminal just might take off -
budgets airlines will grow bigger for obvious reasons and more budget airlines will connect as they mature.
The terminal will take off, it is just a matter of time. No need to cry please. -
more users of BT will only create more problem for SIA. So I think this is a good problem.Originally posted by ablazegal:I guess to some extent what the Minister Yeo Chew Tong said is correct. No venture is viable overnight. Hence only time can tell whether the budget terminal will be a hit, or not.
Yet I believe that the budget terminal will make headway. The marketing may not be that apparent in the media ( I for one, only found out about the budget terminal when I visited Changi Airport ), but with increasing number of people taking budget carriers and as commuters and carriers make low cost their priority, the budget terminal just might take off -
Your 'matter of time' claims = losses so long as the terminal remains unused.Originally posted by Salman:budgets airlines will grow bigger for obvious reasons and more budget airlines will connect as they mature.
The terminal will take off, it is just a matter of time. No need to cry please.
If the terminal was indeed built to meet the demands of the growing budget airline industry, why didn't the rest of the budget airlines bite the cake?
Ironically, Tiger airways, being Govt-linked, has been primed to 'test' the ground on the new facility and the review from the budget carrier will most likely be favourable.
On the other hand, the transport ministry was quoted:
"....the Budget Terminal can be expanded to cater for other airlines, should they decide to operate from it.
Users of the Budget Terminal can expect to save as much as 50 percent of the cost incurred at the main terminals. "
This skews the main aim of the budget terminal. Uncertainty seems to be clouding the ministry whether it will ultimately be a success or not. The implication to consider accepting major carriers over budget lines to use the terminal sounds shakey and unconvincing. And that might involve further renovations to accomodate the needs of major carriers. -
Well, maybe as the Singapore population becomes poorer and poorer, more people will start to use the budget terminal and the budget airlines for their travels.
Who knows? -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
The BT was NEVER mean to be a success story and it is in our government interest that it will not be. The reason to go ahead is just ensure that IF budget traveling would to boom, singapore will be ready to take on competition.
Your 'matter of time' claims = losses so long as the terminal remains unused.
If the terminal was indeed built to meet the demands of the growing budget airline industry, why didn't the rest of the budget airlines bite the cake?
Ironically, Tiger airways, being Govt-linked, has been primed to 'test' the ground on the new facility and the review from the budget carrier will most likely be favourable.
On the other hand, the transport ministry was quoted:
[b]"....the Budget Terminal can be expanded to cater for other airlines, should they decide to operate from it.
Users of the Budget Terminal can expect to save as much as 50 percent of the cost incurred at the main terminals. "
This skews the main aim of the budget terminal. Uncertainty seems to be clouding the ministry whether it will ultimately be a success or not. The implication to consider accepting major carriers over budget lines to use the terminal sounds shakey and unconvincing. And that might involve further renovations to accomodate the needs of major carriers. [/b] -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
The BT was never meant to be a success story and it is in our government interest that it will not be. The reason to go ahead is just ensure that IF budget traveling would to boom, singapore will be ready to take on competition.
Your 'matter of time' claims = losses so long as the terminal remains unused.
If the terminal was indeed built to meet the demands of the growing budget airline industry, why didn't the rest of the budget airlines bite the cake?
Ironically, Tiger airways, being Govt-linked, has been primed to 'test' the ground on the new facility and the review from the budget carrier will most likely be favourable.
On the other hand, the transport ministry was quoted:
[b]"....the Budget Terminal can be expanded to cater for other airlines, should they decide to operate from it.
Users of the Budget Terminal can expect to save as much as 50 percent of the cost incurred at the main terminals. "
This skews the main aim of the budget terminal. Uncertainty seems to be clouding the ministry whether it will ultimately be a success or not. The implication to consider accepting major carriers over budget lines to use the terminal sounds shakey and unconvincing. And that might involve further renovations to accomodate the needs of major carriers. [/b] -
Surely the terminal will take off - with the help from the POWER OF ONE - why should it remain grounded ?Originally posted by Salman:budgets airlines will grow bigger for obvious reasons and more budget airlines will connect as they mature.
The terminal will take off, it is just a matter of time. No need to cry please.
BUT at what further costs to Singaporeans ?
If the Budget Airlines can take-off and land on the runways of Changi Airport, why was so much painstaking effort made to deny these budget travellers any access to the amenities that are already fully developed at the existing Terminals 1 and 2 ?
With a large traffic in Budget Airlines that is to be expected grow further, can the new budget air terminal cope with increases ? -
The cost of maintaining T1 and T2 are extremely expensive and if you want to use the facilities, you must be willing to pay for the airport tax (around $120 each). If budget traveller have to pay $350 for a ticket with tax, will it still call budget airline?Originally posted by Atobe:Surely the terminal will take off - with the help from the POWER OF ONE - why should it remain grounded ?
BUT at what further costs to Singaporeans ?
If the Budget Airlines can take-off and land on the runways of Changi Airport, why was so much painstaking effort made to deny these budget travellers any access to the amenities that are already fully developed at the existing Terminals 1 and 2 ?
With a large traffic in Budget Airlines that is to be expected grow further, can the new budget air terminal cope with increases ?
I dont think we are expected to provide 5 stars airport service and faclities for budget travellers. Just take a look at Senai airport, they arent that big either. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Yes, so much has been spent on T1 and T2, and also the soon to be opened T3 - if the Budget Travellers are not allowed to enjoy the exclusive amenities provided for the 'Higher Fare' Travellers, then we could have easily herd the budget travellers to a different wing within the same existing structures; or perhaps allow budget travellers a shorter check-in to take-off period so that none can spend too much time to use the facilities - (not that they are free).
The cost of maintaining T1 and T2 are extremely expensive and if you want to use the facilities, you must be willing to pay for the airport tax (around $120 each). If budget traveller have to pay $350 for a ticket with tax, will it still call budget airline?
I dont think we are expected to provide 5 stars airport service and faclities for budget travellers. Just take a look at Senai airport, they arent that big either.
To make the Budget Terminal a success, those other budget airlines will probably be "financially encouraged" to migrate over soon.
In all probability, additional ground equipment will have to be purchased to ensure that the Budget Terminal will operate as smoothly to retain Changi Airport's reputation as an air traveller's hub.
It will take a while before the "Baby" White Elephant turns grey, and by then it may turn anaemic unless additional "help" is injected
What will be the eventual price that will be drained from our Reserves ? -
i think there is a misconception that those who fly budget airlines are always budget passengers. there are many who would like cheaper air fares but wouldn't mind the extra couple of bucks to alight from the aerobridges, ease of transfer, strolling through carpeted floors and etc.....
the current set-up of the budget terminal assumes that singapore is the final destination. to be a truly aviation hub, you'll need to be able to connect passengers from one flight to another and with the terminal totally seperated from the main ones will make transfer a huge headache.. -
If I am not mistaken, most budget airline destination doesnt have aerobridge either. If we were to build one, then the cost of the BT will probably double, and singaporeans will again start complaining that it is a white elephant.Originally posted by countdracula:i think there is a misconception that those who fly budget airlines are always budget passengers. there are many who would like cheaper air fares but wouldn't mind the extra couple of bucks to alight from the aerobridges, ease of transfer, strolling through carpeted floors and etc.....
the current set-up of the budget terminal assumes that singapore is the final destination. to be a truly aviation hub, you'll need to be able to connect passengers from one flight to another and with the terminal totally seperated from the main ones will make transfer a huge headache..
Like I said before, Singapore government has not intention to make budget traveling a success in this country for the interest of both SIA and CAAS.
Honestly if you want to travel budget airline, you should not expect to have good connectivity, services and comfort. -
You have been to T1 and T2 right? Can you find any space as big as the current BT within T1 and T2 itself? Shorter check in time? I think this will give more inconvenience to the budget traveller.Originally posted by Atobe:Yes, so much has been spent on T1 and T2, and also the soon to be opened T3 - if the Budget Travellers are not allowed to enjoy the exclusive amenities provided for the 'Higher Fare' Travellers, then we could have easily herd the budget travellers to a different wing within the same existing structures; or perhaps allow budget travellers a shorter check-in to take-off period so that none can spend too much time to use the facilities - (not that they are free).
To make the Budget Terminal a success, those other budget airlines will probably be "financially encouraged" to migrate over soon.
In all probability, additional ground equipment will have to be purchased to ensure that the Budget Terminal will operate as smoothly to retain Changi Airport's reputation as an air traveller's hub.
It will take a while before the "Baby" White Elephant turns grey, and by then it may turn anaemic unless additional "help" is injected
What will be the eventual price that will be drained from our Reserves ?
The reason they call it BUDGET teriminal is to basicially to differentiate itself from Changi T1 and T2. The word budget already says it all, and there is not need to talk about facilities and reputation. -
I think Singapore is dragging its feet over the Budget terminal because it poses the same problem as the Causeway. We are expanding our Orchard shopping belt and building IRs, then you develop a budget terminal.
Who will want to pay for trips to IRs or even shopping when you can just hop on a plane and fly to somewhere where you can get better bang for your buck? -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Actually, it was very creative of the Changi Airport Authority to create additional docking space for aircrafts by ADDING finger extensions from the exising Terminal 2, and the same could be done for Terminal 1.
You have been to T1 and T2 right? Can you find any space as big as the current BT within T1 and T2 itself? Shorter check in time? I think this will give more inconvenience to the budget traveller.
The reason they call it BUDGET teriminal is to basicially to differentiate itself from Changi T1 and T2. The word budget already says it all, and there is not need to talk about facilities and reputation.
The space at the north end of Terminal 1 - the area between the upper 'legs' of the Letter "H" in which smaller aircrafts normally are docked - could be taken over by Budget Airlines.
Alternatively, one of the 'finger pier' that was creatively built out of Terminal 2 could be usefull too.
Unfortunately, as all things are done here, the Singapore Government intend to make Singapore the NUMBER ONE HUB for Budget Airlines.
To achieve this the Budget Terminal will have to have some "basic" amenities.
At what ever cost that the Budget Terminal is to be built, the investment can be recovered faster by renting out the internal shop space - and the more space that is rented, the Budget Terminal will pay for itself.
Is the full cycle not returned to again, and saving would have been better made if we caould align it with existing facilities ? -
Can you use google earth so that we understand what you are talking about.Originally posted by Atobe:Actually, it was very creative of the Changi Airport Authority to create additional docking space for aircrafts by ADDING finger extensions from the exising Terminal 2, and the same could be done for Terminal 1.
The space at the north end of Terminal 1 - the area between the upper 'legs' of the Letter "H" in which smaller aircrafts normally are docked - could be taken over by Budget Airlines.
Alternatively, one of the 'finger pier' that was creatively built out of Terminal 2 could be usefull too.
Unfortunately, as all things are done here, the Singapore Government intend to make Singapore the NUMBER ONE HUB for Budget Airlines.
To achieve this the Budget Terminal will have to have some "basic" amenities.
At what ever cost that the Budget Terminal is to be built, the investment can be recovered faster by renting out the internal shop space - and the more space that is rented, the Budget Terminal will pay for itself.
Is the full cycle not returned to again, and saving would have been better made if we caould align it with existing facilities ?