I refer to the letter No 40km rule on distances between airports .

AirAsia seems to be saying that since all those existing airports are so close to each another, it is okay for AirAsia too.

The point completely missed is these are all existing airports. The regulations must obviously refer to new airports.

Take Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong, famous for its hair-raising take offs by planes which was built years ago.

When China wanted to site the new Hong Kong international airport in 1997, it located in the New Territories, more than 40 km from Kai Tak

To take the example of London (which I am very familiar with), there are four major existing airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton - but there has not been a new airport built for at least 10 years now.

It is common knowledge that no new airport is likely to be built anywhere in the UK in the foreseeable future due to opposition from environmentalists.

Then there is the issue of poor utilisation of KLIA. I have often left London Heathrow chockablock with Far Eastern departures to arrive at KLIA with almost empty bays except for the KL/Singapore shuttle.

On the plus side there is the 25-minute highspeed train to KL Sentral. Why Air Asia cannot come to an accommodation with KLIA's operator to utilise this spare capacity is beyond me.

To build a new airport meaning new runways, new terminal buildings, new rail or bus links, new accommodation for staff, new customs and immigration facilities just because AirAsia has acquired a few dozen Airbuses looks to me like building a another garage for your home just because you don’t like the colour of the first garage.