-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Budget Terminal - Soon to be history
- Thread starter johnny333
- Start date
Dun think they will got anything to say, the budget terminal is useless and looks bad anyway....
Isn't it ironic that it was called a "Budget" Terminal? haha
Why built it and tear down so fast. Really a waste. If can use as cargo terminal/warehouse still not bad.
Imagine how much million $ waste.
I've never used the dreaded BT. Whenever I fly budget class it has always been with Air Asia. I did fly with Tiger when they first started but back then the Budget Terminal did not exist.
Thinking of visiting the BT to see if it is really that bad. Read that they don't even have escalators
1995 when I was working for a gas company I was called to a CAAS meeting to supply private gas to new kitchens as they were in the planning stage to construct T3 and towngas will have to be cut off. They have to plan accurately and consider future expansion. In the meeting we needed to look at drawing so that we could run pipings. Guess what I saw in the drawings? T7 was already in the plan. Yes they are very forward looking and I was impressed. However I have to say that I remembered seeing some future terminals being small ones not as big as T2 & 3.
Budget terminal's roof used hundreds of thousands of my screws.
It ok la then they will use more screws
Penny wise, pound foolish. You would expect nothing less from those scholar-bureaucrats.
They're the same dolts who suggested to Vivian Balakrishnan that a computerised monitoring system will help solve the flood problems.
Personally, although I also agree that many of these "dolts" are quite stupid, I'm even more inclined to think that they're EVIL/MALICIOUS/HYPOCRITES, i.e. greedy for power, possessions and pleasure (the 3 Ps, as I like to call them), without regard for the consequences, whether in this world or the next, while still pretending to be "good" people!
Last edited:
I agree that they are very forward in planning. Anyone noticed that in the brand new T3, the gates start with A B C and then follow thru' to T1 - is D E F.. and you have to wonder or imagine that T1 was built 25 years before T3...
erection2015
Alfrescian (InfP) + C
Do we really need another new terminal
As I see it the limitation is the limited air space over Spore. If they give out more slots to airlines it will only mean more congestion on the ground like what is happening on our roads.
Of course scaling back expectations is not as lucrative as building like there is no tomorrow, but isn't that the role of a government
As I see it the limitation is the limited air space over Spore. If they give out more slots to airlines it will only mean more congestion on the ground like what is happening on our roads.
Of course scaling back expectations is not as lucrative as building like there is no tomorrow, but isn't that the role of a government
Do we really need another new terminal
As I see it the limitation is the limited air space over Spore. If they give out more slots to airlines it will only mean more congestion on the ground like what is happening on our roads.
Of course scaling back expectations is not as lucrative as building like there is no tomorrow, but isn't that the role of a government
The max one long haul for something like B747 is actually about 20 hours, enough to reach London or New York from Singapore. But most airlines like to break it into 3/6/9/12 hours transit stops. It's because of passengers and profits. How often can you find about 400 passengers fill a plane for a single 20-hour long haul flight everyday? If you break the route into transits, you can unload and pickup passengers along the way to keep the plane filled. Singapore's location is very good for the transit business enroute to many countries. Most of Changi Airport profits are from transit business, refuelling, catering etc.
Yeah, the tarmac run. And still have to contend with heavy lug on baggageRoyMcFarland said:
When 1st open, arrival passage linkway was non-aircon .. kns (redressed that later). And who can forget the PR contest to name ternimal. Couldn't they just simply BT (another acronym as on what's painted on the road towards terminals)?
Guess poor planning didn't envisage increase budget carrrier traffic, with costly revamps.
KL Sentral is right, but the blxxdy LCCT is miles and miles from nowhere, and also KLIA (with airport train). Granted AA made it popular, but whole darn place looks more like a crowded inter-city bus terminal (nor surprising, as AA's also a domestic carrier. Have you walked through passage to board AA planes when raining? It's a nightmare to pick correct plane to board. Shuttle ride is too long, and taxi ride to town can (ironically) cost you more than 1 way fare. And if I bothered to drive to Sg, I'd probably be half way down Malacca way liao
So old Subang for FireFly is more sane, nearer to PJ and downtown.
Gone through same facelifts, and hear there are plans afoot to rebuild (resite?) new LCCT
Last edited:
It started operations in 2008. So its only been around for 4 years
Would be interesting to see which construction companies have benefited from the original Budget Terminal project & if this same group of people will benefit from the new project
Watched CNA yesterday said the T4 will have no aerobridge too, like that what is the difference with current budget terminal? Why must tear down and re-built and cannot renovate and extend?!
What to do, it's a trend for airports to move further away from city centres e.g. HK, KLIA, Taiwan, BKK,.. :(
Been a long time since I've flown to KLIA. Used to fly there on company bizness. Nowadays I go to KL on my own time & I usually just take a bus because I find it more convenient. I take the bus from Novena .
When I travel in the US it's quite common to see planes queuing up to take off. It's that crowded
In the case of Spore I suspect what they need is more parking space & not more terminals just
Of course the authorities will not admit this & would prefer to build more terminals as they can charge more for shop rentals & the airlines for terminals
When I travel in the US it's quite common to see planes queuing up to take off. It's that crowded
In the case of Spore I suspect what they need is more parking space & not more terminals just
It's the taxiing queue on departure and arrival (not your taxi cab). During my time, Narita queue could take more than 30 minutes. I heard that the situation has been relieved somewhat after Haneda took on more international flights. Changi considered good, seldom exceed 10 minutes. Parking and servicing is at the hangar after disembarking passengers, not a problem for passengers in terms of waiting time. Yes, airport shop rental is big business too.
Last edited:
Similar threads
