United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9036 posts, RR: 16 Posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Kuala Lumpur International Airport is now ranked number 2 in the World. It was opened two years ago, about a week earlier than the Hong Kong International Airport.
The Airport itself is very modern, as well as clean. I been there once. Very nice!
However, I strongly doubt that they REALLY need a new Airport. Sure it is very nice and big. But considering the number of planes going to Kuala Lumpur, as well as the capacity of the Airport VS the actual number of users using the airport, I think the Airport itself is too big. Under Capacity.......
Lufthansa, British Airways have both pulled out of Kuala Lumpur.
Do you guys think they really need a new Airport? I would say............ YES! However, wrong timing.
There is indeed a market at KUL where they can connect many Malaysians to the US, as well as Europe. However, they should open it five years later from now, instead of 3 years ago. And the Malaysian Government should do a lot more to promote their New Airport.
Southern From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 198 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Compared to Subang Intl, yes, KL needed a new airport cause Subang was in a shocking state (pax terminal i mean). It was a turnoff to all pax and wasnt a nice introduction to Malaysia.
The size of the new airport is not needed. But remember, this is only Plan A of more Plans to come, so it is currently only 1/4 finished, there is land and plans to build 2 more runways, and 3 more satellites identical to the current one, as well as another check-in terminal like the current one.... but i seriously doubt this will be needed anytime soon.
Jubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2026 times:
Why do they need a new airport?
Room for expansion and the need for upgrading of facilities. Even though the current KLIA is too big, have you thought of the size of the old airport ?
Wrong timing ?
Hmmmm makes sense, but then again KLIA was a project that was envisioned before the Asian Economic crisis hit. Airports don't spring up overnight, a lot of planning has to be done, and KLIA was planned when Asia was experiencing it's boom period. I think "unforeseen circumstances" would be a better description than wrong timing.
You said 5 years later, and what makes you think that there will be a good demand 5 years later to warrant a supposedly "delayed" opening of KLIA ? You should understand the risks involved.
Anyway, KLIA was timed to coincide with the hosting of the Commonwealth Games (?) as a showcase for the rest of the world, so no-one can change the timing.
There had been bad publicity about the problems plaguing KLIA.......from rats to baggage systems, cargo woes etc... All these does not help KLIA at all. The distance from Kuala Lumpur in relation to Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah doesn't make KLIA popular, especially with the "monopoly" of taxi services.
Airlines go for profits, and will only ply the profitable routes. Taxes, landing charges etc are cost that needs to be paid for with profits.
The Malaysian Government will have to spend more effort in promoting KLIA...that i agree, but the government will have to be careful of the types of measures.
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2926 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
This topic has been debated to death in the past - but hey some of you are new (maybe even too young to remember Subang airport)...
1. Kuala Lumpur was in DIRE need of a new airport in the early 1990s as Subang was limited by being located in an area which was becoming increasingly urban.
2. Subang's location meant it was limited to ONLY having one runway. Passenger terminal space was also limited eventhough Terminal 1 was expanded in the 1980s to its maximum possible size. Terminal 2 (initially built as an interim terminal whilst T1 was rebuilt) HAD to be reopened to off-load some of the squeeze by shifting the busy KL-Singapore shuttle service there. Terminal 3 was finally, hastily built at the other end of the runway to cope with the increasing demand for space at T1 in the early 1990s.
3. During the 1990s, KUL saw a surge in passenger numbers and foreign carriers. UTA (and later Air France), Kuwait Airways, Ansett Australia, Air New Zealand, China Southern, Eva Air, Balkan, All Nippon Airways, MEA, Iran Air, Merpati, Vietnam Airlines, Royal Air Cambodge, Myanma Airways, Gulf Air, LaudaAir, Indian Airlines, AirLanka, Nippon Cargo, Emirates, Saudia, PIA, Fedex and Uzbekistan Airways ALL began flights during this period.
4. British Airways, China Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, JAL, (even) SIA, Thai, Biman, Garuda and KLM ALL boosted services into KUL, whilst KUL's long time foe Qantas reinstated a 747-300 service into Sydney. Believe it or not - British Airways at this time complained of being unable to gain favourable slot-times!
5. MAS was riding high with new destinations like Mexico City and Buenos Aires whilst doubling services into key markets like Australia and Europe. Other carriers were keen to come into KUL like Virgin Atlantic, Swissair, Alitalia, Egyptair and did so by joining MAS in the (then) 'newish' concept of code-sharing. Aeromexico, South African Airways, (now defunct) Zambia Airways, SAS, LTU, Varig, Asiana, United and Northwest all began looking at KUL as a destination.
6. Car-parking became an IMPOSSIBILITY - cars were regularly seen parking up to 1/2 mile away from T1 down the Airport Highway.
7. Check-in became a NIGHTMARE. BA and KLM used to notify passengers to check-in up to 3 hours in advance for fears of huge queues - as T1 only had 60 check-in desks - of which 30 were for MAS only. BA and MAS started trying out city check-ins to try and cope with the lack of space.
8. Gates were often not assigned until boarding time as the airport layout made it almost impossible to predict which gates would be available. Passengers often had to trek to one end only to find that a previous flight was delayed and their aircraft was now docked at another gate or even worse - at the Cargo Centre which was located on the other side of the airport, across the airbridge - accessible only by airport buses which constantly stopped to let aircraft pass.
9. Duty free shops were pokey and there were limited Food and Beverage facilities and toilets or lounge facilities.
10. Aircraft often had to wait in long queues after landing or before take-off as the single runway only had one taxiway. Efforts to build a second taxiway did not help to relieve the congestion as the parking bays were always full. I once waited on a BA 747-400 for 25 minutes by Terminal 3 before the flow of aircraft on the ground made it possible to park at T1.
11. T1 queues on arrival at Immigration were notorious due to the shortfall in desks available. It had only 4 baggage carousels - which were always overflowing with luggage - handlers had to be employed to constantly take pieces off and stack them in rows by the carousels to create more room.
12. The arrivals hall had its 'Pick-Up' point removed due to the lack of pedestrian space - passengers then had to lug all their luggage up a long flight of stairs towards the car park.
13. Technologically - the ATC was outdating fast. Morale was poor - a fire which was set by an arsonist closed the airport for 3 hours - whilst I circled over Sumatra in a Qantas 767. Many other fires occured due to old wiring.
14. T2 became much like a bus stop for Shuttle users - there were hardly any facilities as there was no room. SQ was NOT happy. Passengers were even less impressed.
15. T3 injected some new life to a dying 'grande dame' but by now there really was NO space left - thank GOD for the new Kuala Lumpur International Airport - which has now made the whole idea of flying into KL so much more pleasant. It deserved to rank no.2 in the world and once the Express Train starts next Spring - NO-ONE will be able to complain of its distance....
...now all we have to do is erase the fact that the economies of Asia crashed shortly after the new airport opened. Now that was hardly an idea the government, architects, developers and investors (and that includes all airlines concerned) had in mind.
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9036 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
Actually, the Economy in Malaysia is quite bad. Many projects like Grand Hyatt Duta Kuala Lumpur are on hold.
According to the rankings, KLIA is number 2 in the World. The ranking is even higher than the Changi Airport in Singapore. Inspite of the fact that the Express Train will start next spring, most people will find it convenient reaching the airport.
Airlines can actually consider diverting some of their flights from Changi Airport to KLIA.
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1472 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
The logic of some of the discussions defy me . . .
What has the bad shape of the Malaysian economy got to do with airlines diverting from Singapore Changi Airport to KLIA?
KLIA is a beautiful airport . . .frankly, the architectural merits of KLIA is not lost on anyone who's had the good fortune to use the facility at least once . . . but its distance to the city, the lack of extensive connections to other Asian cities, the limited number of other airlines operating into it . . . and the airport is unfortunately located between two existing hubs - Bangkok and Singapore.
Add to that the cut-throat business climate which resulted in poor yields for airlines competing against the national carrier . . .
KLIA Airport is probably a case of an airport that was built far too big far too soon. My recent experience using this airport has deterred me from a return anytime soon . . . due mainly to the condescending attitude of the staff my colleagues and I encountered (separately).
But all said and done, it has the makings of a great airport . . . the hardware is there . . . the software is missing.
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2926 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
Actually Airmale you are right - PIA used to fly twice weekly via Colombo using the DC10.
To be frank - a lot of people I know complain about staff at KLIA - until this day - 3 years on - I have yet to come across anyone rude - except maybe MAS staff who often barge onto the Aerotrain instead of letting others on or even out (the other side!) first.
I have only had to wait for my luggage once (a common complaint) and that was on an MAS flight from Singapore.
Airpearl From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 936 posts, RR: 27 Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1880 times:
Perhaps as an interim cost cutting measure, say for the next 5 years, KLIA should close down its satellite building - and only use the MainTerminal Building and Contact Pier - that should give the impression it's a much busier airport!
G-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
I feel the main reson why KLIA is a backwater airport compared to SIN is because Malaysia cant compete with Singapore.
For a start,Singapore is the financial hub of the region. Many major multinational companies have the regional headquaters within Singapore and Singapore itself also has many strong multinationals of its own.I dont think Malaysia has any,its so-called national car,Proton is infact a Mitsubishi with a few adjustments. Singapore has big companies like TEMASEK and the also produce the SoundBlaster card for the PC which is the best.
The average Singaporean is around 10 times richer then the average Malaysian and Singapore had a bigger economy even though it is much smaller then Malaysia. This means that Singaporeans will be able to spend more money on holidays and flights.This therefore means that more flights will be needed to carry passengers.
In brief its the economic power of Singapore that has resulted in Kuala Lumpur not being a major hub.This is also the case for Brussels which is surrounded by 3 of the worlds most powerful economies,Britain,France and Germany.Malaysia I feel can only compete with Singapore if it becomes the growing economy that it was before 1997 or it increases its population base.
Airpearl From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 936 posts, RR: 27 Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
G-KIRAN, it must be remembered that Singapore is a city-state and comparisons on the basis of only GNP per capita will always result in distortions - Singapore's population is a tenth of Malaysia's and while Singapore is 100% urban, Malaysia has a fair urban/rural mix. If one was to look at the per capita income of say Kuala Lumpur alone vis-a-vis Singapore, then the gap would not be as great. Therefore, concluding that KUL gets fewer flights just because of its lower per capita income would be not looking at the whole picture. (After all, Thailand is technically "poorer" than Malaysia and yet airlines flock to Bangkok too!)
What I feel is happening now is that Singapore is assuming/maintaining its traditional role as the entry port to Malaysia. Singapore was historically a part of Malaysia and its role as a trading centre and port for the region has never diminished. Kuala Lumpur has tried to take over this role and during the fast growth years of the 1990s it succeeded to an extent - hence the Malaysian government's push to build KLIA. But of course, the abrupt end of the so-called Asian economic miracle meant people cutting links, severing businesses and airlines cutting routes.. little surprise then that KLIA, a massive airport of a small business city with limited and poor regional flight connections, bore the brunt of airline withdrawals.
After all, if you were an airline who choses to cover the Malaysia/Singapore/Indonesia market, which single airport would you serve on a daily basis?
Singapore - there's really no contest.
Just ask UA, NW, BA, LH, AF, SR, SK, EK etc. etc.
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2926 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
G-KIRAN - those are pretty careless things to say.
Proton does actually own a large proportion of Lotus - which makes it NOT British anymore. They do not merely rehash Mitsubishi's anymore as you wrote. Apart from that Malaysia also has large multinationals like Sime Darby and many others - so your arguments do not hold much water. Not only that - Malaysia also has a large bank of foreign investors who do fly in and around the country.
For the first time perhaps - I'm in complete agreement with Airpearl.
The whole issue does stem from unfortunate series of circumstances that began in 1997 with the Economic crash.
G-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
MAS777:Proton does actually own a large proportion of Lotus - which makes it NOT British anymore.
Just because Lotus is owned by proton does not mean
that Lotus is Malaysian.I dont see any application of Malaysian expertise involved.Lotus if I am correct is still based in Britain and it will always be British because it WAS US who created the brand name and it WAS US that developed it.Is Rover a German car?No!It maybe owned by Germans but its not German.If a British company buys BMW,it will still be a German company.
Look in the aviation industry.British Airways owns 25% of QANTAS,yet do we call QANTAS British?British Airways used to own about 30% of USAir,but was USAir British?I think that SAS has a 40% stake in BMI,yet do we call them a Scandinavian airline?Cathay Pacific is owned by a British company(correct me if I am wrong),but do we call them British.Malaysia Airlines has a 20% stake in World Airways,but their still American.SIA owns
49% of Virgin,but is Virgin Singaporean?SABENA is 49% owned by a foreign airline,but its still Belgian.Recently some airlines such as QANTAS wanted to buy a stake in MAS.So based on your arguement,that means MAS would become Australian,but wait,QANTAS is british so that means that MAS will also be British.Thats strange,fancy naming an airline Malaysia Airlines when it is british.So your arguement holds as much water as the Sahara desert and whats your point?
Fine,I will admit that Proton is now very Malaysian.But at the start it was mostly Japanese technology and without the Japs with their technology and Dr M for his vision,I dont think the car could have got under way.
MAS777:Apart from that Malaysia also has large multinationals like Sime Darby and many others...
I have just been to the Sime Darby website.From the website it appears to be a Malaysian company that acts as a real estate developer and as far as I can see they dont investment overseas.Is that a multinational or a multi-malaysian state company.
I have only seen one Malaysian company abroad and that is Proton.The national oil company,Petronas can only be found in Malaysia.I live in Singapore and I have never seen a Pertonas station here.The biggest Malaysian Insurence company,MNI which my auntie works for does not even have an office outside Malaysia.Now lets see you compare MNI to Allianz and Jardines,all of a sudden MNI is not too big after all.
MAS777:Malaysia also has a large bank of foreign investors who do fly in and around the country.
Sure they might have,but where are most these foreign investors along with their HQ's based?Singapore not KL.The KL offices are just regional offices but where is the regional HQ?Singapore.
MAS777:The whole issue does stem from unfortunate series of circumstances that began in 1997 with the Economic crash.
Based on my knowledge the 1997 crises was not caused by George Soros and they is nothing unfortunate about it.
It all started when banks in asia started loaning out money to companies who could not afford to payback their loans.They did this to earn extra cash.When the foreign investors heard about this they pulled all their money out.Most of the cash in these economies belonged to the foreign investors the major ones being USA,UK and Germany,When they converted the local currency back to their curreny it resulted in a huge devaluation.That is why the currencys of the Japan,South Korea,Thailand,Malaysia and Indonesia crashed against the dollar,pound and deusthce mark.The Singapore dollar did not crash because its banks did not give out faultly loans to earn extra cash from the interest rates.The government later devalued the Singapore dollar slightly to stay competitive.
So as my mother once said "Its your fault"
She was saying this to an companion in Malaysia who suggested that rather rudely that the expats are to blame and they all should be sent home.For your information,MAS777 my mother is an expat from the UK,but she is Malaysian.She is a Director at Jardines Lloyd Thompson Asia at the regional HQ in Singapore.So she knows what she is taking about.
I suppose in another 5 years time if KLIA is not doing well,you will still be blaming the 1997/98 crisis.Look at BKK.Thailand was worse off then Malaysia during the crisis,yet how many airlines pulled out of BKK?Most of the major international airlines stillf ly there.Its about time that you should stop giving excuses about the financial crisis or a Singapore sabotage attempt.Get your finger out and give airlines a reason to fly to KUL without a loss.
Ps.No landing fess after midnight wont do the trick.
I rest my case.
I agree with you that the per captia income of Kuala Lumpur and the klang valley is alot higher than the Malaysia average.
I was using these facts to drive home the point that Malaysia cant at the moment compete with Singapore economically because Singapore is more powerful and Malaysia is to close to Singapore.If Malaysia and Thailand swap places with Bangkok being where KL is then you will see SIN and KUL getting all the pax while BKK will be left with an empty airport.
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2926 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1788 times:
G-Kiran - I am not even going to debate about issues that you get from your mother.
Don't mean to be patronising but as a share-holder of Sime Darby - you may find that they are rather larger than you might expect - heard of 'Dunlop' or 'Sime Medical' - incidently Sime Medical supplies much of the world's hospitals with latex based equipment. Other large Malaysian conglomerates include Khazanah, Malakoff, Berjaya...I could go on. If you want to see another Malaysian-owned company abroad - visit your local Shangri-La hotel...
You misunderstood me about Lotus - I said it is not British anymore - ie. it is now not a wholly-British owned company. Albeit little Malaysian expertise goes into Lotus but Proton did inject some much needed capital to get the Elan and Elise models launched.
Sure - many companies have regional HQs in Singapore - after all that is currently an ideal base - but that was part of the reason behind KLIA - to IMPROVE KL as a gateway to promote companies to set up HQ's in KL. Take BT, Motorola, Siemens and even Boeing (FlightSafety) - they all have major investment divisions in Malaysia and the government is keen to see companies like these setting up regional HQs in KL instead of Singapore and before you reply - I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH THIS but whatever you or I think - this is not going to influence whether or not a government builds an airport.
Did 'I' mention George Soros? You lost me in your reply - I merely pointed out the fact that all major Asian countries suffered from the crisis which was unfortunate. The timing of KLIA opening also unfortunately coincided with this which forced major cutbacks by airlines flying into Asia and a need to consolidate on routes...or would you say that this was not an unfortunate turn of events for KLIA...?
This whole paragraph made me roar with laughter...
"...So as my mother once said "Its your fault"
She was saying this to an (sic) companion in Malaysia who suggested that rather rudely that the expats are to blame and they all should be sent home.For your information,MAS777 my mother is an expat from the UK,but she is Malaysian.She is a Director at Jardines Lloyd Thompson Asia at the regional HQ in Singapore.So she knows what she is taking about...I suppose in another 5 years time if KLIA is not doing well,you will still be blaming the 1997/98 crisis.Look at BKK.Thailand was worse off then Malaysia during the crisis,yet how many airlines pulled out of BKK?Most of the major international airlines stillf ly (sic) there.Its about time that you should stop giving excuses about the financial crisis or a Singapore sabotage attempt.Get your finger out and give airlines a reason to fly to KUL without a loss...."
...did you READ my reply - who said any of the above but YOU. Do I care where you mother is from or what your mother does? You have NO idea who some of the people on this forum are either - I may have political links, airline links, whatever - so don't impose such information on others. Did anyone here give reasons for the crisis or mention a 'Singapore sabotage attempt' EXCEPT you?
G-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
Malaysian companies overseas:
I get your point,weel kind off.Looking out of my window I can see the Singapore Shangri-La.I have just looked up Shangri-La on Yahoo! and surprise surprise they only have branches in China,Taiwan,South East Asia and Oceania.Not big world-wide are they.
I have heard about the Sime group too and I have seen their ads on RTM and of course they supply lots of latex products because Malaysia is the worlds largest producer of rubber.In fact do you know how the rubber industry in Malaysia started?Sime are just lucky that Malaysia has those resources.
If you want to see a Singaporean company,look inside your computer and you might find Creative Labs Soundblaster Card.That is found world-wide,not just in asia.Not bad for a country of 4 million,is it?
Foreign ownership of Lotus
Would you like to name me some Malaysian expertise involved?
The bit about the loans from the bank was taken from a BBC World program about the financial crisis.
Look mate.The reason why I mentioned Soros and my mothers opinion was to point out the fact that your so called unfortunate crisis was not unfornutate but it was caused by yourselves and you only have yourselves to blame.
I mentioned my mothers position to point out that she knows that she is talking about.I dont care what you think of her as long as it is not insulting.
I agree that the pulling out of airlines from KLIA was unlucky,but the currency crisis was not.
As for the Singapore sabotage attempt,I got that from the New Straits Times,which is the premier newpaper in Malaysia.The Malaysian press always likes to bash Singapore.Maybe their jealous because Singapore has attained so much since independence while Malaysia has been idle until only recently.So its not me talking crap,but your national newpaper.
Your last paragraph
MAS777,do you think I am stupid.I am very aware that we have no idea who the forum members really are.That is why I dont chat online,I could be talking to a serial killer for all I knew.You might not be a doctor after all and I could be the head of the CIA.
I may have political links, airline links
I am really scared!I might have some too....
PS.interesting discussion,keep the replies coming.No joke.
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Sorry for this off topic post but G-KIRAN, you're not entirely correct about the cause of the 1997 financial crisis. The main problem was that the assets which backed most loans didn't cover the loan due to the bursting of the property bubble in Thailand. Yes, banks did take risks they shouldn't have taken, but most of these loans had been backed by assets. When the bubble bursted in Thailand this triggered the same reaction in other Asian countries. Moreover, the fact that these countries were highly leveraged made them very vunerable to changing market sentiment.
Furthermore, as banks stopped lending to companies, more companies got into trouble as the assets which backed their loans declined. Foreign investors/speculators who have invested very large sums of money in previous years became scared and immediately pulled out their money. This is off course devasating for of country like Malaysia as they don't have enough foreign reserves to defend their ciurrency, hence the devaluations. If I'm right before the crisis the Thai bath and Malaysia Ringgit was hooked to the USD. George Soros knew that this link couldn't survive and speculated against it, which resulted maybe into more speculating against the Asian currencies.
However, the main reason why Malaysia is unique is that they imposed regulations after the crisis which outraged the financial community and scared away foreign investors. Fortunately these regulations aren't in force anymore allthough investors still remember them.
As for KLIA, I think they'll prosper as Malaysia will overcome the current crisis and more tourists will visit Malaysia.
Jubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1744 times:
I just love the part on the sabotage attempts. And the Malaysia government seems to make no attempt to dissipate the "threat".
A recent article comes to mind with regards to Perlapas Port in Johor at the Northwestern end of Singapore.The Johor Mentri Besar (or someone else in Johor Government) was actually reported cautioning developers against any "sabotage attempts" by Singapore due to its close proximity and its plans to derail the project as it's gonna be a great threat to Singapore as a Port hub.
Now that the port had became successful, it;s all due to "the government's brilliant plans".
It's like, if it's successful, it's Malaysia's effort, and failure would be S'pore's fault.
G-KIRAN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2000, 736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1742 times:
This is taken from my post in the non-aviation forum.It is the best explantion I have heard for a long time.J777 your a genius and welcome to my respected users list!I hope you dont mind me using this!
I will try to keep it simple.
Thailand, as well as the other asian countries of the east asian miracle, was enjoying rapid growth before the crisis. Many of the banks were making loans to firms, especially in the building and construction sector, in hope of great returns....due to the increasing demand for office space in the capital areas. (Just look at the Petrona Twin Towers, Bangkok Light Rail etc).
However, many of the loans were actually made in foreign currency like US$. This is due to the strong Baht, as well as governments control float policy. It also make it easier for these companies to buy imports from the outside countries.
Due to excessive borrowing of foreign currency by local companies, the Thai Central Bank was unable to maintain the rate of the Thai Baht (selling Baht to buy foreign currency) and most of the foreign reserves held by the Central Bank was subsequently drained while trying to stabilise the currency.
Without any more money to support the Baht, the Thai Central Bank had no choice but to free float the currency. This lead to the fateful day July 2 1997 where the Thai currency plunged it greatest percentage in a single day.
The devaluation of the Thai Baht means a greater cost of previous borrowings....and those compnies which borrowed foregin currencies were badly hit, and they will have to repay them with more Thai Baht. Many construction companies subsequently collapse...and the bank which made those bad loans also faced problems as many lenders are unable to repay loans.
Those foreign banks based in other countries which made loans to Thailand and other Asian countries were immediately demanding the return of loans for fear of bad debts. They were selling off their holdings of Asian currencies and buying US$, putting pressures on many other asian currencies besdies the Baht.
Currency speculators were taking the chance on the currencies of other "structurally weak" countries like South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia, with foreign debts and "reckless" spending patterns.
(How the speculators comes into play is questionable, but they do play a part after the Thai crisis).
The chain of events is eventually know as the Asian Economic Crisis, and the many uncompleted /empty commercial/residential buildings around Asia bears the aftermath of the crisis.
Ok,I was wrong Soros might have been involved.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
No. I don'tt hink it needs a new airport. A new one has already been built, and another one isn't going to attract any one new. I think BA have already re-started services to KUL. I'd rather BA and QF fly to KUL than SIN to get rid of them.
The twp apts are quite similar, both are Asian, friendly and clean and efficient. I assume they have similar landing fees.