New Budget Terminal?

[lingua101]

They could possibly turn the entire T1 central apron into NB gates...but I certainly hope they don't, the few WB a/c that use T1 central apron go a long way to spice up a boring day of seeing endless streams of AirAsia and Jetstar.

T1 will become the "newest" terminal once the refurbishment complete next year. T2 will be the oldest...

[flying.monkeyz]

how about reclaim nearby islands and build a new airport there? is it a possibility? like u said there is so much land that u can have in mainland

It's probably cheaper to build a bridge across to batam and use the severely under-utilised 4000m runway airport there.

[MAN Flyer]

how about reclaim nearby islands and build a new airport there? is it a possibility? like u said there is so much land that u can have in mainland

Why on earth would they need to do that when they already have the third runway in place and plenty of space for additional terminals ?.

[sealalula]

That's right. I pass there most weekday mornings and it always changes

The only thing doesnt change is Jett8

[boing]

how about reclaim nearby islands and build a new airport there? is it a possibility? like u said there is so much land that u can have in mainland

SG Government has invested too much money in Changi airport that the idea of relocating SIN's international airport seems far fetched. Changi will be the core of future aviation growth, no doubt about it. I believe this location was chosen, among other reasons, as it has the potential to be expanded through land reclamation if the need arises. It is surrounded by sea !

I don't think the SQ 777's going to their LCC have been pulled from SQ service yet. Every time I pass by the BT I see different SIA 777s there, and sometimes A333s too.

Yup. That particular remote bay( 103, 104) are just parking areas when aircrafts have a long ground time. No particular allocation whatsoever.

It's probably cheaper to build a bridge across to batam and use the severely under-utilised 4000m runway airport there.

Are you serious ?

[MAN Flyer]

That was the mistake KUL made. When they built the current LCCT and moved AirAsia there, they didn't really think more than 4 or 5 years ahead.

They waited for it to be operating way beyond capacity before thinking "Hmm.. I *think* we need a new terminal"

Changi has done exactly the same.

I don't think the SQ 777's going to their LCC have been pulled from SQ service yet. Every time I pass by the BT I see different SIA 777s there, and sometimes A333s too.

I see. Well, whatever 777's are there it's p*ssing Tiger off and they have complained about not being able to use that area themselves.

[9V-JKL]

The only thing doesnt change is Jett8

LOL. True. But she's not there @9 this AM. That lot's empty. Do you know where she's gone?

[sealalula]

LOL. True. But she's not there @9 this AM. That lot's empty. Do you know where she's gone?

Well, yesterday I went by SouthCross and saw that it was parked at a inner stand facing north.

[wsssaero]

I see. Well, whatever 777's are there it's p*ssing Tiger off and they have complained about not being able to use that area themselves.

I don't really see why they need to make a big deal of it. Stands 103 and 104 where the SIA aircraft are parked are perpendicular to the BT Apron and aren't connected to the BT apron too, so pax can't walk over there to board (and I'm sure APD is not going to allow it). Wherever the aircraft are parked it's just a matter of coordination to tow them in on time.

[RHG]

SG Government has invested too much money in Changi airport that the idea of relocating SIN's international airport seems far fetched. Changi will be the core of future aviation growth, no doubt about it. I believe this location was chosen, among other reasons, as it has the potential to be expanded through land reclamation if the need arises. It is surrounded by sea !

in the past, i don't always agree with your views but this is something i fully endorse. I previously posted the Budget terminal was never part of the master plan. And till now, i see no evidence to discredit that view.

The master plan allowed for a full service terminal to be built and fully operational every 10 to 12 years.

[SilverChris]

Changi has done exactly the same.
.

Not really, IMO. Changi still has time to build a new BT, rather than the guys at KUL who wait for the terminal to be overloaded before deciding to take action.

[SQflyergirl]

rather than the guys at KUL who wait for the terminal to be overloaded before deciding to take action.

Selamat Datanglah... now only you know meh?

[MAN Flyer]

I don't really see why they need to make a big deal of it. Stands 103 and 104 where the SIA aircraft are parked are perpendicular to the BT Apron and aren't connected to the BT apron too, so pax can't walk over there to board (and I'm sure APD is not going to allow it). Wherever the aircraft are parked it's just a matter of coordination to tow them in on time.

Are you serious ?. You don't understand why they are complaining about not being able to use the remote stands next to their own terminal, where they can tow an aircraft round in minutes, rather than having aircraft stuck at Terminal 1 where it can take up to an hour ?.

Not really, IMO. Changi still has time to build a new BT, rather than the guys at KUL who wait for the terminal to be overloaded before deciding to take action.

I disagree. Changi's BT is already getting full - hence Tiger having to tow aircraft from T1 taking an hour or so each time - and they themselves admit they have been caught out by the boom in LCC's. With TR's fleet set to almost quadruple in the next few years, not to mention possible additional LCC flights to be started to SIN, I'd say they have been well and truly caught out, just like KUL.

[SilverChris]

It's probably cheaper to build a bridge across to batam and use the severely under-utilised 4000m runway airport there.

Ah.. Just what I need to brighten up my day

Pssst MAN Flyer, I have a feeling this may be "one of those threads"

[Nick C]

IIRC, there's a plot of land next to the BT which used to be a sand dump during the T3 construction period. It has since been reinstated to a grass patch. Wonder why this plot has yet to be converted to tarmac, will probably address the lack of stands around the BT.

It's probably cheaper to build a bridge across to batam and use the severely under-utilised 4000m runway airport there.

Lots of work to reconfigure a couple gates but it's cheaper to build a bridge?