NAIA Parking Now p1200 Per Night

[scott h]

10 minutes ago, Mike J said:

My guess is that the accountant types did run the numbers prior to the increase.

Spot on Mike. The Juans running these big conglomerates are no dummies. I would wager that the majority of them and those in the upper echelon were all educated overseas. We are just used to dealing with the local sari-sari store owner, convenience store clerk and handyman.

The elite in this country are on par with the elite anywhere. For example, our city is firmly in control of a local dynasty. The youngest a Barangay Counselman graduated cum laude Michigan University, his dad (ex-mayor, now congressman, running for mayor again) La Salle U. His uncle (ex-congressman, now mayor, running for congress again) calif state U of Los Angeles and La Salle U. His Aunt is the Barangay captain graduated from San Diego State University (my alma mater).

I am sure the other elite families are pretty much the same. 

[OnMyWay]

12 hours ago, Mike J said:

My guess is that the accountant types did run the numbers prior to the increase. 

An accountant running the revenue "what if" numbers is just a small piece of the puzzle.  An accountant only works with numbers given to him.  They have not given the public any numbers to justify the increase, so I doubt that they did a proper study.  The timing is also suspect.  A proper study would take a a good amount of time to complete.

Upper level managers make decisions based on lower level workers recommendations.  Or consultants.  Upper level management in large PH corporations may be well educated, but that does not mean they get good recommendations.  We see evidence of that in our everyday dealings with some of the companies.  And remember that  most of these companies are family controlled.

Reminds me of a personal experience.  My former employer hired Bain and Co. consultant to help them analyze an acquisition.  You have to have an MBA to work at Bain Consultants.  I worked with them on the project, providing data.  They highly recommended the acquisition.  Hundreds of millions were lost.  Thousands of jobs were lost.  The company barely held on and it took years to recover.

So what numbers need to be considered for the parking?  A few big ones would be:

How many spots are used by non-airport users?

How many spots are used by airport employees?

How many spots are used by short term airport users?  (pickup and drop off)

How many spots are used by passengers leaving their vehicle overnight?

How many days do long term parking passengers leave their cars?

Where do long term parking passengers live?

At what price point will long term parkers no longer park?

Traffic studies.  How many legitimate airport visitors have to drive around because they can't find parking, etc.?

====

I know that you just threw those projection numbers out there, but they added up to 55% utilization.  A parking structure like Terminal 3 MLP is a big investment.  Doubtful that it would have ever been built if utilization was 55% or less, like it probably is now.  Based on the videos, it looks like 20%, with the majority close to the terminal walkways, which indicates short term parkers.  That is good for them and ideally areas close to the terminal should be reserved for short term.  Long term can park farther away in their designated areas.

Sticking with terminal 3, I read that the MLP has 2500 spaces.  Then they have the open parking area, and the extension parking area, farthest away.  Let's call that another 1000 spaces, total 3500 at terminal 3.  Let's imagine that one of those highly educated San Mig guys figures out a way to keep the non-airport users out of the parking.  With the current 1200 overnight rate, most long term parkers are priced out of the market.  Of course there are exceptions that will park no matter the price, but based on the recent videos, that is not a lot.

So now, let's just throw out that there are now 3000 spots available for short term parkers, which is 1-2 hours or so?  How many short term parking spots are needed?  Many of those spots are not desirable for short term parking as they are too long a walk.  Also, all the former long term parkers are going to cause traffic at the curb getting dropped off, picked up.

The point is, there are solutions for:

A.  Keeping non-airport users out

B.  Allowing enough dedicated close-in short term parking to accommodate the need

C.  Provide long term parking at a reasonable rate 

D.  Address employee parking as needed.

I don't know why it is hard for some to accept that there are better solutions available, that can work for all the stakeholders.

 

 

[baronapart]

This thread is starting to remind me of my divorce in my first marriage.

[Clermont]

I wonder if he gets a new dummy out of it 

[scott h]

On 10/1/2024 at 7:33 AM, OnMyWay said:

This is a game changer for me

Sorry, but I just have to ask. Of all the idiotic, crazy, dumb, foolhardy, foolish, foolhardy, insane, silly, asinine, batty, birdbrained, daffy, daft, dull, harebrained, imbecilic, moronic, senseless and thickwitted ideas, plans, schemes and programs we have both seen floated or enacted in the 13 plus years here in the Philippines that we have both been members of this board. Would you be so fixated on this development if it did not affect you directly?

Sorry to say this, but the bottom-line is that the conglomerates and the majority of the citizens of Imperial Manila are in favor of this so you poor slobs in the provinces are just going to have to live with it. 

(P.S. I did not come up with all those words by myself, thesaurus. com comes in handy )

[OnMyWay]

1 hour ago, scott h said:

Would you be so fixated on this development if it did not affect you directly?

No, of course not, but it does impact me a lot.  It pretty much precludes our family from using NAIA.  I usually have to spend 30-50 k for tickets for a domestic vacation, and now another 10k for parking?  I hope Clark can meet our needs.

I would ask the same of you.  Why are you so fixated on defending this when there are better solutions?

So be it.  Wait and see.  It will change.  They will not leave the parking lots at ~20% of capacity.

[Mike J]

13 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

An accountant running the revenue "what if" numbers is just a small piece of the puzzle.  An accountant only works with numbers given to him.  They have not given the public any numbers to justify the increase, so I doubt that they did a proper study.  The timing is also suspect.  A proper study would take a a good amount of time to complete.

Upper level managers make decisions based on lower level workers recommendations.  Or consultants.  Upper level management in large PH corporations may be well educated, but that does not mean they get good recommendations.  We see evidence of that in our everyday dealings with some of the companies.  And remember that  most of these companies are family controlled.

Reminds me of a personal experience.  My former employer hired Bain and Co. consultant to help them analyze an acquisition.  You have to have an MBA to work at Bain Consultants.  I worked with them on the project, providing data.  They highly recommended the acquisition.  Hundreds of millions were lost.  Thousands of jobs were lost.  The company barely held on and it took years to recover.

So what numbers need to be considered for the parking?  A few big ones would be:

How many spots are used by non-airport users?

How many spots are used by airport employees?

How many spots are used by short term airport users?  (pickup and drop off)

How many spots are used by passengers leaving their vehicle overnight?

How many days do long term parking passengers leave their cars?

Where do long term parking passengers live?

At what price point will long term parkers no longer park?

Traffic studies.  How many legitimate airport visitors have to drive around because they can't find parking, etc.?

====

I know that you just threw those projection numbers out there, but they added up to 55% utilization.  A parking structure like Terminal 3 MLP is a big investment.  Doubtful that it would have ever been built if utilization was 55% or less, like it probably is now.  Based on the videos, it looks like 20%, with the majority close to the terminal walkways, which indicates short term parkers.  That is good for them and ideally areas close to the terminal should be reserved for short term.  Long term can park farther away in their designated areas.

Sticking with terminal 3, I read that the MLP has 2500 spaces.  Then they have the open parking area, and the extension parking area, farthest away.  Let's call that another 1000 spaces, total 3500 at terminal 3.  Let's imagine that one of those highly educated San Mig guys figures out a way to keep the non-airport users out of the parking.  With the current 1200 overnight rate, most long term parkers are priced out of the market.  Of course there are exceptions that will park no matter the price, but based on the recent videos, that is not a lot.

So now, let's just throw out that there are now 3000 spots available for short term parkers, which is 1-2 hours or so?  How many short term parking spots are needed?  Many of those spots are not desirable for short term parking as they are too long a walk.  Also, all the former long term parkers are going to cause traffic at the curb getting dropped off, picked up.

The point is, there are solutions for:

A.  Keeping non-airport users out

B.  Allowing enough dedicated close-in short term parking to accommodate the need

C.  Provide long term parking at a reasonable rate 

D.  Address employee parking as needed.

I don't know why it is hard for some to accept that there are better solutions available, that can work for all the stakeholders.

 

 

Or they could raise the rates to 1200.  

[GeoffH]

4 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

So be it.  Wait and see.  It will change.  They will not leave the parking lots at ~20% of capacity.

I mentioned the possibility of a rate change if utilisation plunged too far way back near the start of the thread.

So yes I wouldn't be surprised to see an eventual rate change, but I wouldn't expect it quickly.

The publicity around it will need to die down to avoid a loss of face and even then I'd doubt it will ever return to the original pricing as they'll want to avoid a return of the non airport user parkers.

[OnMyWay]

3 hours ago, GeoffH said:

I mentioned the possibility of a rate change if utilisation plunged too far way back near the start of the thread.

So yes I wouldn't be surprised to see an eventual rate change, but I wouldn't expect it quickly.

The publicity around it will need to die down to avoid a loss of face and even then I'd doubt it will ever return to the original pricing as they'll want to avoid a return of the non airport user parkers.

Yes, I was thinking about WHEN they might make a change.  Agree that it might be a while but could be sooner if they are losing a lot of revenue.  And I was never against an increase.  400% is ridiculous.  100%, from 300 to 600 might be acceptable to the market and that is about what Park & Fly charges.  No matter what they charge, they need other measures to keep out the non-airport users.

I saw a video on Newport City today.  There is a walkway from Newport City to Terminal 3.  I suspect that is the source for a lot of the non-airport parkers who were taking advantage of the airport parking.  Newport City charges p1000 for overnight.  So it seems logical that the new airport 1200 rate may have been chosen based on that 1000 rate.

[scott h]

8 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

I would ask the same of you

Quite simple really. Despite all my grousing and bellyaching, I sincerely hope for a brighter future for the Philippines.

But as we all know in order to get the average Juan to do anything for the common good that is not in his self-interest he must be beaten about the head and shoulders with a blunt instrument. (At least in the Metro, it might be different in the provinces). To stop counterflowing and illegal parking barriers must be put up. To stop men peeing on every available wall cctv's must be installed. etc. etc. etc. The list is long, and most have been mentioned here, normally in a humorous manner.

Allow me to bloviate at bit. In 1981 I visited Korea for the first time. The streets were dirt, the buildings ramshackle, little boys would run behind our trucks as we threw coins into the street (like the sailors would in the PI and boys would dive to get them). After the live fire flag was lowered on the mortar range, people would dart out into the impact area to pick up the scrap metal. The bars were small, cramped and dingy and the ladies all Korean. You get the picture.

Fast forward to 2002, after the "Korean Miricle". The streets are all wide, new and well paved. New buildings all over the country, the bars are all new and shiny (but still cheap ) and the ladies? All from the Philippines. 

What was Korea's secret? They basically turned the whole country over to the conglomerates. Did they make tons of money? Sure they did but look at the result. 

As I look around the Philippines, I am hard pressed to name anything that is well run, maintained and efficient that is not owned or supervised by the private sector.

4 hours ago, GeoffH said:

they'll want to avoid a return of the non airport user parkers.

And as Geoff pointed out. The rates will hopefully be adjusted downward once the dust has settled and that blunt instrument has beaten some sense into the abusers.