QRM is right, there is a time lag when it comes to infrastructure. To wait till traffic booms to say "hey we need another terminal" is far too late. It takes years to build something like a terminal, and only weeks or months for people to make travel plans. That perfect balance will probably never be achieved so you have to decide which is worse - excess capacity some of the time, or over-capacity now and then. In terms of air travel, the latter is far more dangerous and costly, I would think.resm wrote:Having been working at terminal 3 for 8 month since the day of opening,
I can only wonder why or if they really go ahead with additional terminals.
No, but neither is another beer. Why let that stop us?sierra2469alpha wrote:SIN is uniquely positioned for both sea and air freight. However, there is a massive downturn in air freight within SE Asia (including AUS and NZ) as indicated in last weekend's issue of the Wall Street Journal. DHL are fourloghing tech crew, SQ Cargo are already furloughing tech crew, and a good friend of mine at FedEx is getting worried about his job as command. At Changi, there is a good sized freight facility backed up by some very good infrastructure to transit certain types of freight to shipping or road routes. Is another runway really necessary?
Like, don't give up your citizenship?sierra2469alpha wrote:I had a conversation about Singapore's viability with someone on this forum a few months ago, and they wisely advised Ms. C and I on a few things.
Ms. C and I give up a beer? Not in our lifetime!Wind In My Hair wrote: No, but neither is another beer. Why let that stop us?![]()
Wind In My Hair wrote: Infrastructure projects are one way the government pump primes the economy in a recession. That certainly makes it necessary from the once again fashionable Keynesian viewpoint...snipped because other people can read your great posts here......
So... Necessary? No. Sensible? Yes.
sierra2469alpha wrote:I had a conversation about Singapore's viability with someone on this forum a few months ago, and they wisely advised Ms. C and I on a few things.
Fair points, WIMH - very salient points IMHO. Well done as usual.Wind In My Hair wrote:Like, don't give up your citizenship?![]()
Singapore's viability has always been in question - when the nation was born, ever since, right up till today. And nobody knows that better than the powers-that-be, which explains their paranoia. Forever building, forever upgrading, forever pushing ahead, forever afraid to go into decline and become no more...
Yes, food and the price of accomodation are the only things cheaper here, with only food being relative to tourism. Hong Kong has the benefit of still being Tax Free with the exception of tobacco and alcohol. Beer in the pub is still pretty cheap even at that.ksl wrote:ScoobyDoes: Couldn't agree more, although I was in Hong Kong in December, I found the food in the food court at shopping malls, double of what Singapore charge.
Theoretically governments should build up reserves in good times through taxes and investment, with enough of a budget surplus to use when times turn bad. Sadly, most governments have failed in this and operate with perpetual budget deficits that only get bigger in bad times. This is one reason I am grateful for our government here - for all their other faults, they have practised sound fiscal policies.sierra2469alpha wrote:My point, however, is that during times of "healthy economies", these infrastructure works should have been carried out. Why? Well, where is the money going to come from? Seen the bond rates today?
True. I'm sure the port authorities and private shipping companies are watching Klang closely:sierra2469alpha wrote:So, we have the most efficeint seaport in the world, and a fairly efficient airport. given our strateguc (geographically) position, then is global trade declines (derr - it is already) then we should be able to shielf ourselves, as long as we remain COMPETITIVE. That means more flights per hour, more ship movements, better container clearing rates. We're up there - big time, but we need to compete with our neighbours.
Just a couple of points.Wind In My Hair wrote: True. I'm sure the port authorities and private shipping companies are watching Klang closely:
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ ... ports.html
Hong Kong and China are catching up, though those serve a huge domestic hinterland and may not be in direct competition with us, who deal mainly with transhipment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_port
Ergo competition, no? Transhipment makes up 80% of our port business. Not sure what the point is.ScoobyDoes wrote:Port Klang is doing quite well but generally the vessels calling in there are the same ones calling in at Singapore. If Klang is getting busier it just means shipping companies are doing more trans-shipments there than here, most likely as a cost control.
You measure in time, I measure in quantity.ScoobyDoes wrote:Hong Kong port is not catching up with Singapore, but is instead dropping off. HK was the busiest port for many years before it started swapping years with Singapore, before then falling behind.
Wind In My Hair wrote:You measure in time, I measure in quantity.ScoobyDoes wrote:Hong Kong port is not catching up with Singapore, but is instead dropping off. HK was the busiest port for many years before it started swapping years with Singapore, before then falling behind.
My understanding of what is going on at Changi is that SQ is split over the T2 & T3 because if they moved completely to T3 then there would be no passengers in T2 and the businesses there would suffer. Also, I think that T1 is due to be closed sometime this year for refurbishment, which will move those airlines to T2 and SQ will then move completely to T3. This info is of the opening of T3 last year, so may have changed.ScoobyDoes wrote: WIMH: With regards Terminals 1 and 2, their age is the reason for current upgrading works facilitated partly by the shuffling of airlines. I still wonder if T3 is large enough to be able to handle SQ without the need to split between it and T2....... and to be honest if T3 is NOT large enough to handle SQ wholy then somebody screwed up in a big way! Some people tell me it is not large enough yet we have some SQ flights plus now a lot of other airlines.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests