KUALA LUMPUR: In a battle that looks set to worsen, AirAsia Bhd has come out with its own set of bewildering revelations on the construction of KLIA2, the country's new low-cost carrier terminal.
The budget airline has refuted claims by Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) that it had asked for a fully automated baggage handling system (BHS) and a 4km runway.
It also denied that it had been part of a decision by MAHB to increase the terminal capacity of KLIA2 to 45 million passengers per annum (ppa).
On Saturday, MAHB published on its website a list of requirements purpotedly made by airlines that were incorporated into the construction of KLIA2.
In the posting, MAHB said an airline, believed to be AirAsia, requested for the BHS, a 45 million passengers per annum capacity terminal and a 4km runway.
The BHS has been cited as one of the main reasons for the delay in the completion of KLIA2.
Referring to a letter dated August 9, 2011 written by MAHB managing director Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad, AirAsia said MAHB had confirmed that KLIA2 would be sufficient for 30 million ppa.
"This figure has never been officially changed by AirAsia or MAHB since August 9, 2011," the statement said.
It also went on to say that a joint committee comprising AirAsia and MAHB officials to agree on the construction of the new terminal and the charges, fees and concession mix was never formed.
"MAHB has not been consistent in producing mutually agreed plan and cost of construction," AirAsia said.
The statement also claimed that the 4km runway had been allocated for in the original design of the LCCT and had not been specifically requested for by AirAsia.
A letter written by AirAsia's Strategy, Airports and Planning regional head, Ashok Kumar, on July 6, 2010 to MAHB is cited to back the claim.
The low-cost carrier also had in its letter to MAHB in 2009 warned of the unsuitability of the site for KLIA2 and that costs would go up to between RM3.7 billion and RM3.9 billion.
AirAsia cited four elements - work to prepare the KLIA2 site, construction cost of the LCCT, a proposed sky bridge and MAHB's baggage system (not a fully automated one) - as contributors to higher costs.
The budget airline has refuted claims by Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) that it had asked for a fully automated baggage handling system (BHS) and a 4km runway.
It also denied that it had been part of a decision by MAHB to increase the terminal capacity of KLIA2 to 45 million passengers per annum (ppa).
On Saturday, MAHB published on its website a list of requirements purpotedly made by airlines that were incorporated into the construction of KLIA2.
In the posting, MAHB said an airline, believed to be AirAsia, requested for the BHS, a 45 million passengers per annum capacity terminal and a 4km runway.
The BHS has been cited as one of the main reasons for the delay in the completion of KLIA2.
Referring to a letter dated August 9, 2011 written by MAHB managing director Tan Sri Bashir Ahmad, AirAsia said MAHB had confirmed that KLIA2 would be sufficient for 30 million ppa.
"This figure has never been officially changed by AirAsia or MAHB since August 9, 2011," the statement said.
It also went on to say that a joint committee comprising AirAsia and MAHB officials to agree on the construction of the new terminal and the charges, fees and concession mix was never formed.
"MAHB has not been consistent in producing mutually agreed plan and cost of construction," AirAsia said.
The statement also claimed that the 4km runway had been allocated for in the original design of the LCCT and had not been specifically requested for by AirAsia.
A letter written by AirAsia's Strategy, Airports and Planning regional head, Ashok Kumar, on July 6, 2010 to MAHB is cited to back the claim.
The low-cost carrier also had in its letter to MAHB in 2009 warned of the unsuitability of the site for KLIA2 and that costs would go up to between RM3.7 billion and RM3.9 billion.
AirAsia cited four elements - work to prepare the KLIA2 site, construction cost of the LCCT, a proposed sky bridge and MAHB's baggage system (not a fully automated one) - as contributors to higher costs.
