Why Changi Works

[pgsdiver]

I read an article today in the SMH traveller section (yes I know.....).

"Changi is a superb airport", says Geoffrey Thomas, the Perth-based editor-in-chief of www.airlineratings.com. "It works so beautifully. That's because it's government-owned, and the Singapore government understands the importance of air travel to the national economy, and invests in the infrastructure to support it."

World's best airport: What it's like to spend 24-hours straight inside Singapore's Changi Airport

I have no idea whether the fellow quoted above has any axe to grind, but on the face of it the comment makes sense.
The thing that struck me about this is that I can't help think our Aussie airports would run better (whisper it!) if they were still under the government's control (Trust me when I tell you I almost broke out in a rash writing that, as a staunch "small-government" guy). I simply can't accept that a geographical monopoly can be expected to do anything except the bare minimum to ensure customers keep using the service.

I'd be interested to hear other folks' opinions of the various public and privately operated airports around the globe, as I'm sure the correlation isn't universal, given that many governments aren't as enlightened to the importance of air travel as the Singapore government appears to be.
Regards,
Peter

​

 

[Boca68]

The first thing that comes to my mind, is the sentence.... "It works so beautifully. That's because it's government-owned, and the Singapore government understands the importance of air travel to the national economy, and invests in the infrastructure to support it."

I'd agree with the second part of the proposition, that Singapore understands the importance of air travel to its economy. especially as its a major Asian hub. Although with the incredible growth of Chinese aviation in the last 10 years, its slowly becoming less so.

But the first part, regarding being government owned, is not necessarily relevant. There are many government owned airports around the world. My experience, an airport being government owned is generally a negative thing. In other words, government airports tend to do the basics well, but neglect the amenities.

Singapore is really a one off situation. An autocratic government with a view to the world. Mostly because it realises, it can't survive without outside input. A very rare thing.

 

[dajop]

In Australia, I suspect government run airports would be no better, in fact probably worse than the current monopolies. It's much easier to invest in long term success of infrastructure when it's a one party state and the eye is on the 30 year plan, not the 30 month plan ....

Also Australia's airports are infrastructure that supports the rest of the economy. In Singapore the airport is an important part of the economy, it competes with other hubs in the region and also supports a significant investment in the aviation sector.

Also look around the world, in the US many airports are run by governments and very few would make it into the lists of the "worlds best airports".

 

[RooFlyer]

Perhaps its the nature of the government concerned? if they want to get something done, or changed, there are many fewer pesky rules and regs that they must observe (ie can simply bypass because they can).

 

[Melburnian1]

Perhaps its the nature of the government concerned? if they want to get something done, or changed, there are many fewer pesky rules and regs that they must observe (ie can simply bypass because they can).

That may be so, and it's a good point in relation to Singapore, but it doesn't explain why airports such as HKG and PVG are not as good as SIN, yet essentially (forgetting for a moment the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong) why the other two airports aren't as good as SIN (Changi.)

And why aren't airports in Russia, another autocracy in practice, not nearly as good as Asian airports? What about Harare (not an airport to which I have been)?

 

[RooFlyer]

That may be so, and it's a good point in relation to Singapore, but it doesn't explain why airports such as HKG and PVG are not as good as SIN, yet essentially (forgetting for a moment the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong) why the other two airports aren't as good as SIN (Changi.)

And why aren't airports in Russia, another autocracy in practice, not nearly as good as Asian airports? What about Harare (not an airport to which I have been)?

Well, in relation to Russia and Zimbabwe at least, I think we can additionally qualify the Singaporean government as "somewhat authoritarian AND efficient/competent"

 

[moa999]

The key difference is the government can take a broader view.

The privately owned Aus airports will only spend money that generates a return - so spend is concentrated on car parks, retail facilities, with gate and airport expansion only taking place when it is impacting growth.

Whereas a Govt owned airport like Singapore can take a broader view.
More transferring pax equals more people laying over, equals hotels, food, shopping, equals GDP, equals taxes
So the airport facilities themselves can be loss making as they generate a return elsewhere

 

[ajd]

I wonder if there's anything to be said for different types of private ownership.

CBR is owned by Capital Airport Group, in turn owned by Terry Snow, Canberra's only billionaire, and his family. On the one hand, I don't know how I feel about having so much wealth concentrated in a single family that they can own a capital-city international airport, but on the other hand, their privately-funded redevelopment of the terminal is pretty incredible.

 

[Spongbob]

Privately-owned airports only spend money on facilities and services if, and when, there is a clear case for a return on the investment to the business.

Government-owned airports spend money on facilities and services if it is likely to benefit the community in some way (e.g. inbound tourism).

In other words, the difference is self interest vs public interest. The logic of private ownership is the airport is operated more efficiently than it would be if it was government owned.

 

[Denali]

I dont think its just about ownership. When I think about Changi, I also think about the abundance in staff and their attitude to their work and pride in having the title of best airport.

Ive seen Changi staff cleaning toilets with better attitudes than aussie airport staff that dont even have to get their hands dirty but carry on like pax are an inconvenience to them.

 

[seanpodge]

While government owned airports won't always be surefire winners every time, I think that privatising natural monopolies/oligopolies such as airports in the way Australia has done is just asking for trouble.

 

[moa999]

Ive seen Changi staff cleaning toilets with better attitudes than aussie airport staff that dont even have to get their hands dirty but carry on like pax are an inconvenience to them.

But that's cultural attitudes, and employment conditions

The cleaner in Singapore lives in a Govt subsidised apartment and is quite happy with their lot in a non-unionised role.

The Singapore population is happy to accept foreign workers for low paid construction and menial job tasks, much like the Arab states

Whereas in Australia...

 

[Spongbob]

The cleaner in Singapore lives in a Govt subsidised apartment and is quite happy with their lot in a non-unionised role.

I could be wrong, but I understand the Singapore trades union congress is an important part the the PAP government.

 

[auriga]

But that's cultural attitudes, and employment conditions

The cleaner in Singapore lives in a Govt subsidised apartment and is quite happy with their lot in a non-unionised role.

The Singapore population is happy to accept foreign workers for low paid construction and menial job tasks, much like the Arab states

Whereas in Australia...

I think the cleaner is very likely to be a foreigner as well....

 

[dajop]

I think the cleaner is very likely to be a foreigner as well....

Living in a worker dormitory probably.

 

[Skyring]

While government owned airports won't always be surefire winners every time, I think that privatising natural monopolies/oligopolies such as airports in the way Australia has done is just asking for trouble.

I think the transfer of CBR from public to private had a remarkably beneficial effect. The old airport was pretty woeful (albeit the parking was free in parts, and you could pick up easier.)

The airport land was under-utilised, because the government had no interest in developing it. Now we have a bunch of office buildings out there, a hotel, and quite a thriving shopping district.

In fact, it's where I prefer to do my weekly grocery shop.

None of this would have happened if it hadn't been sold. Instead, the development would have occurred in Civic, and the city centre would be more crowded and unpleasant than it already is.

 

[Himeno]

None of this would have happened if it hadn't been sold. Instead, the development would have occurred in Civic, and the city centre would be more crowded and unpleasant than it already is.

Maybe they could have rebuilt the rail bridge and had the train station in/near Garema Place and the trains would be more easily used then getting to Kingston Station.

CBR airport pick ups were a lot easier before the terminal redevelopment. I guess if you time things right with the person doing the pick up, you could do something similar now (get picked up at the departures drop off area), but I guess airport staff are on the look out for that.

 

[clifford]

(get picked up at the departures drop off area)

I do the right thing and get picked up by my partner in a car park in the nearby office complex area. It's just a 5-minute walk through the multi-story car park and has legal 1 hour parking..

We can then both laugh at how ridiculous it is to have that huge office development right on the edge of the operational area.

And as for the retail area over the other side, the car park near Woolies has been chockers during the current school holidays. Not sure why people would drive all that way just to be inconvenienced.

 

[Skyring]

Maybe they could have rebuilt the rail bridge and had the train station in/near Garema Place and the trains would be more easily used then getting to Kingston Station.

CBR airport pick ups were a lot easier before the terminal redevelopment. I guess if you time things right with the person doing the pick up, you could do something similar now (get picked up at the departures drop off area), but I guess airport staff are on the look out for that.

Not just the airport staff, but the cops. Mind you, the cops come along and park in the drop-off area.

The place is full of cars "hovering", and passengers doing likewise, getting in the way. There's an express pick-up zone, and there's even a free carpark a few paces further on. Park for ten minutes, no charge.

I get a little annoyed with people too lazy or too cheap or too ignorant to make the system work for them.

 

[Skyring]

I do the right thing and get picked up by my partner in a car park in the nearby office complex area. It's just a 5-minute walk through the multi-story car park and has legal 1 hour parking..

We can then both laugh at how ridiculous it is to have that huge office development right on the edge of the operational area.

And as for the retail area over the other side, the car park near Woolies has been chockers during the current school holidays. Not sure why people would drive all that way just to be inconvenienced.

Low-rise offices, and they are actually set back quite a way. The hangars are bigger and closer to the runways.

All supermarket car parks are busy at peak periods. You ever try to park reasonably close at Woden? Or Dickson, where you have to pay?

I live in Reid, and the airport is more convenient than Civic or Dickson. I don't think it's ever taken me more than 30 seconds walking to get to the car in the free car park. The fact that the place is busy says something about how people regard it.