n an interesting move, the airline's chief executive, Tony Fernandez, has invited the public to blog and write letters of support to media outlets, in an effort to change public opinion.

The plan calls for a "privately funded" airport just a few kilometres from the current KLIA / LCCT complex.

But opponents are pointing out that there is not only little justification for the new airport but also that building it will create a range of problems.

First, it is to be built on land owned by Sime Darby. Most of the land Sime Darby owns in that part of the country is plantation land - and so it will probably mean extensive clearance in an area already scarred with extensive clearance for housing, roads and mining.

Secondly, KLIA is a fantastic airport - genuinely one of the best in the world. And it is underused. Instead of a new airport, what is needed is the political will to better integrate the LCCT and the main airport (for example, by extending the railway line to the LCCT and providing for inter-terminal transit - a simple job of extending the existing inter-terminal railway. Making budget carriers use a separate terminal (which is, to be frank, a bit of a shed) instead of KLIA proper was a political decision - designed to keep the "nice" airport for premium passengers. But there is already a domestic terminal that carries international flights. By improving inter-terminal communications (presently only by long and expensive taxi journey) the spare terminal capacity can be used.

Kuala Lumpur has what amounts to a mothballed airport at Subang. This was KL's international airport until KLIA was opened. It could easily be used as an extension of KLIA with the creation of a fast rail link. The tracks are mostly already in place: it will simply require some relatively minor upgrade and some routing and scheduling changes to take account of the fact that it will be shared with commuter trains. An alternative is to link Subang to the LRT "tube" - which would give a transit time between airports of about an hour with a change at KL Sentral. Certainly, Subang could be turned into a domestic airport - which would make sense as it is within the boundaries of the greater KL area and its principle disadvantage is the lack of effective rail links.

KL remains a traffic nightmare and the creation of inter-airport road traffic will increase both traffic and pollution with little benefit.

But the largest objection must come from the simple fact that the total traffic into KLIA / LCCT is less than 30 million passengers each year. Upgrading works at LCCT are almost complete but although there are an increasing number of carriers, the number of passengers is not growing as rapidly as hoped.

Tony Fernandez pleads that he has a perfect business case for a new airport: "We are also deeply worried that given the number of aircraft we have ordered — two new planes arrive every month now — AirAsia and AirAsia X will soon have no room to park the aircraft or gates to operate them from. The new terminal is a matter of life-or-death for us."

That smacks of trying to hold the government to ransom: and reports in the past few days suggest that the government has agreed without conducting a full environmental impact survey and considering all the alternatives outlined above.

And if a new runway and standing room are required, then the existing KLIA complex has plenty of space. It is, quite simply, not necessary for the construction of a new airport on a new site. That is the view of KLIA's management which has asked the government to reconsider its decision to approve the plan for the new airport and, if a new LCCT is needed, to bolt it onto the existing site.

Bloogers and those who write to the newspapers may not be writing what Mr Fernandez wants to hear.

Active Planet

Sign in with a social network: