New Budget Terminal?

[boing]

This comes as a total surprise. Albeit a pleasant one. All the more considering news of BT's expansion was out in the news a few months ago.

When everyone had T4 envisioned on the other side of 02C, CAG officials just took a " What the heck ! Just demolish and build a new one" attitude.

That was the original plan, but wth them now seemingly looking at making T4for LCC's, they may wonder if the cost is worth it.

Even though the capital costs of setting up a skytrain line are high, it should be cheaper in the long run compared to running a fleet of buses to shuttle passengers and visitors to T2 24/7. And they are planning on an initial capacity of 16 million pax per annum compared to BT's 7 million. Can a shuttle bus service efficiently convey these passengers plus visitors without causing any delay to the pax ? This is something that the planners must consider.

[Nick C]

Will T4 have a sky-train connect to the others?

No Skytrain connection as two active taxiways separate T2 and the new T4. Building a rail track willl be challenging.

It's possible as the PMS can always be routed under SC1 & SC2.

IIRC, T2 has provisions for a PMS station on landside where the Starbucks outlet is currently located.

[boing]

It's possible as the PMS can always be routed under SC1 & SC2.

IIRC, T2 has provisions for a PMS station on landside where the Starbucks outlet is currently located.

That's what I thought as well. There is space enough for a 2 to 3 lane road under SC1 & 2 and it's currently filled with gravel and loose rocks. So, running it at ground level under SC1 and 2 solves the problem of crossing SC. It would even be cheaper as it would be going at ground level. Then it could be elevated to a point at T2.

[SilverChris]

I suppose they don't need skytrain connections to every terminal. Maybe T2 only is sufficient. At least, that's what they're doing now, albeit with buses.

[flyguy]

Perhaps the Changi Airport Group and CAAS should relook into rebuilding the Budget terminal or the new T4 and to ensure that it is planned and built for the next 20 years at least and not like the current budget terminal which lasted only just 6 years plus. And it would be planned and built for the immediate future and should reconsider a people mover between the terminals instead of using shuttle buses for the next 20 years in view of the expected growth in LCCs. The use of aerobridges should still be restudied in view of our inclement wet weather and also to be one of the best regional LCC terminal as even KLIA2 will have aerobridges. I have experienced being on a Tiger plane for 25 minutes after it landed due to heavy downpour and passengers cant be deplaned and hence such delays will also cause the plane's next few flights to be subsequently delayed.

[boing]

Perhaps the Changi Airport Group and CAAS should relook into rebuilding the Budget terminal or the new T4 and to ensure that it is planned and built for the next 20 years at least and not like the current budget terminal which lasted only just 6 years plus. And it would be planned and built for the immediate future and should reconsider a people mover between the terminals instead of using shuttle buses for the next 20 years in view of the expected growth in LCCs. The use of aerobridges should still be restudied in view of our inclement wet weather and also to be one of the best regional LCC terminal as even KLIA2 will have aerobridges. I have experienced being on a Tiger plane for 25 minutes after it landed due to heavy downpour and passengers cant be deplaned and hence such delays will also cause the plane's next few flights to be subsequently delayed.

Taking into account that this terminal is allocated for LCCs, we can expect that CAG would be charging a lower PSC compared to the other terminals. And to justify the lower charge and to be fair to the other carriers operating from other terminals at a higher cost, I feel they are just taking away the aerobridge facility as a form of equalizing things out. I found CAG's statement that the absence of aerobridge was to facilitate faster turnaround as a bunch of bollocks as the difference would not be more than a minute or two. These could easily be negated in the event of inclement weather as Flyguy pointed out. Furthermore, aerobridge's are much safer to the pax and aircraft alike. An option that CAG could explore is having a collapsible or retractable tunnel similiar to the one that players in EPL players come out from at the start of a match. They are certainly much cheaper than an aerobridge.

Although the final design scheme has not been revealed, it was known through CAG's statements that T4 would be structurally similiar to the other terminals sans aerobridge. I have a feeling that T4 would have provisions built in for aerobridges in case the land near the third runway becomes available for expansion and would offer CAG the flexibility of converting T4 into a terminal for non-LCC carriers.

[cscs1956]

With all due respect you have no idea what you're talking about.

With regards to big terminals and efficiency - tip: Try transiting through DXB T3.

Are you trying to compare to a better one or those worse than ours?
May be this is why our standard keep dropping ?

[Nick C]

Perhaps the Changi Airport Group and CAAS should relook into rebuilding the Budget terminal or the new T4 and to ensure that it is planned and built for the next 20 years at least and not like the current budget terminal which lasted only just 6 years plus.

The current BT structure was never a permanent solution, it was mentioned in one of their initial press releases that a purpose built facility will be considered down the line. Iron out the kinks before committing to a purpose built terminal that specifically addresses the needs of the LCCs. They could have spent hundreds of millions on infrastructure that would have needed modifications down the line to address shortfalls that were not anticipated.

[cscs1956]

Perhaps the Changi Airport Group and CAAS should relook into rebuilding the Budget terminal or the new T4 and to ensure that it is planned and built for the next 20 years at least and not like the current budget terminal which lasted only just 6 years plus. And it would be planned and built for the immediate future and should reconsider a people mover between the terminals instead of using shuttle buses for the next 20 years in view of the expected growth in LCCs. The use of aerobridges should still be restudied in view of our inclement wet weather and also to be one of the best regional LCC terminal as even KLIA2 will have aerobridges. I have experienced being on a Tiger plane for 25 minutes after it landed due to heavy downpour and passengers cant be deplaned and hence such delays will also cause the plane's next few flights to be subsequently delayed.

Very good comment. A terminal built for jut 6 years and not expending for bigger capacity is a waste of money and resources.

[cscs1956]

The current BT structure was never a permanent solution, it was mentioned in one of their initial press releases that a purpose built facility will be considered down the line. Iron out the kinks before committing to a purpose built terminal that specifically addresses the needs of the LCCs. They could have spent hundreds of millions on infrastructure that would have needed modifications down the line to address shortfalls that were not anticipated.

Yes, I remember that. But now they are moving them to T2 after BT is closed. It seem T2 now has the capacity to hold them and BT was never a need anyway.

[MAN Flyer]

Yes, I remember that. But now they are moving them to T2 after BT is closed. It seem T2 now has the capacity to hold them and BT was never a need anyway.

Are you claiming that they don't need so many terminals on such a small island ?.

The BT was needed at the time as it was specifically aimed at TR who wanted a very basic facility for which they were charged less than if they used the main terminals, which even you would have to admit are far from basic. They got the BT and TR got charged lower for using that than if they had used the main terminals, all three of them which I think is a lot, don't you ?.

[cscs1956]

Are you claiming that they don't need so many terminals on such a small island ?.

The BT was needed at the time as it was specifically aimed at TR who wanted a very basic facility for which they were charged less than if they used the main terminals, which even you would have to admit are far from basic. They got the BT and TR got charged lower for using that than if they had used the main terminals, all three of them which I think is a lot, don't you ?.

Many country share main terminal with barget airlines. Just that they dont get to use facility like bridge etc and the aircrafts are parked far from rest of airline.

This is not new in airport industry. In the end, it all come down to efficiency.
Go and compare airport like HKIA, Japan and even those in USA. There is always another way to save operation cost vs building a new terminal.

[MAN Flyer]

Many country share main terminal with barget airlines. Just that they dont get to use facility like bridge etc and the aircrafts are parked far from rest of airline.

I'm convinced that while you see posts you don't actually read them.

This is not new in airport industry. In the end, it all come down to efficiency.
Go and compare airport like......those in USA.

One of your best yet!

[cscs1956]

Tell me, JetStar use T1, Tiger use BT. Do you find Jetstar tickets is more expensive then Tiger?

[SilverChris]

Tell me, JetStar use T1, Tiger use BT. Do you find Jetstar tickets is more expensive then Tiger?

Your point is?