Published on September 06, 2005

Last week there were a number of pronouncements by New Bangkok International Airport (NBIA) executives about how they had settled on a management plan for the two runways at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

The plan determines who in the vicinity of the airport will be most affected by noise.

Not surprisingly, their decision prompted complaints. These appeared to press the airport to include members of affected communities into the newly established committees to handle the environmental and social impacts of the airport. But absent some major change in transparency from NBIA officials about their true motives and plans, the process will be another futile exercise of “pretend participation” while the airport does what it wants and the complainers give-up or move away.

Take for example the supposed final runway management procedure. This is no more final than the timing of the resolution of the unrest in the deep South. The NBIA is under no obligation to commit to any runway scenario now or at any time in the future.

It will do what any smart business does: manage its assets to minimise costs and maximise revenue. That’s what the NBIA is doing right now, and if the business climate changes, so will their runway plans.

Citing the Bt4-million environmental mitigation plan paid for by the NBIA in 2000, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology north of the airport demanded Bt2 billion compensation for noise mitigation. The smart business move for the NBIA now is to announce that it won’t be using much of the runway next to the college and wait and see what happens.

While this may suggest air traffic will be sent over some of the wealthy housing estates in the area, the residents there are much fewer in number, occupy a somewhat less costly noise contour mitigation zone, don’t yet have their own mitigation study and may not even know they can demand the airport pay for it like the college did.

The airport simply has no solid justification for its plans. When pressed by journalists about why this runway scenario was chosen, authorities could give no definitive answer. The reason is that the real analysis has not been done. These scenarios have not been studied to evaluate the actual cost to the NBIA if proper compensation is paid according to the airport’s environmental impact assessment (EIA).

In fact, when reviewing the EIA there appear to be no clear winners or losers as regards to the various scenarios, other that than a bit more land might be affected in one, and more housing units in the other. And the assessment itself makes no recommendations as to which is the preferred option.

What it does say is that if people fall in one contour zone, they will have their properties expropriated; or they will automatically get compensation; or they may get compensation if they can convince officials that aircraft noise causes them sleepless nights.

It’s how the airport’s management can best minimise these mitigation costs that will eventually dictate the runway choices, and only time will tell how this will play out once the airport becomes operational and engines start roaring.

Thankfully, one issue that has been dealt with in the debate over a runway management scenario is safety. The two major groups of vertical impediments addressed in the EIA, both built in violation of building codes, will be lowered to aviation safety standards. The most blatant of the two offenders happens to be a 61-metre tower in the college itself. All approaches into and out of the airport will be safe and available for use just as airport officials and accountants planned.

But what about all the other residents in the airport neighbourhood who were not invited to the private proceedings last week? Those in shophouses, schools, temples and hospitals? When will they get studies showing how much it may cost to renovate their properties or facilities, similar to those which the college received, to determine which scenario might give them the highest compensation? Few people who spend time in such structures have been contacted by the NBIA or have any idea of the compensation that may be available to them.

Last week marked a good start, when information came forward to stimulate discussion on managing airport noise. It is encouraging that some of those with some knowledge of the system have forced open the door to a dialogue with the NBIA.

But the airport should make clear to all parties what its motives are and ensure all those potentially affected are treated equally and have the same access to resources.

While Bangkok may be a noisy place, it need not be any noisier than necessary, and so far when it comes to minimising the impact of the new airport noise, all we’re hearing is static.

Nantiya Tangwisutijit,

Pennapa Hongthong

The Nation

Post your comment to this story here