Craig

Maybe. SUB is somewhat on the way to AKL - if you are lucky, you might see Mt. Bromo Almost *all* of QR's traffic is connection, maybe like 10% O&D. MH does prioritize connections, but previously it was more EU-AU/NZ centric. The late arrival into KUL on MH 131 (around 21:00 previously) suits well for EU connections. Now with only 2 LHR flights, it can be served with either flight combos from KUL. With these new timing, AKL will be connected to all of Asia plus LHR (some Asian connections longer than others obviously) without the need of overnighting at KUL

Sacrificing utilization to maximize connection at KUL? AFAIK, MH has never operated double overnight to AKL (either overnight from KUL but return as a daytime service [MH 130/131] or daytime service to AKL and return as overnight from AKL [MH 132/133]). They usually just do a quick turnaround at AKL (75 minutes per current schedule until 14 May). With this new schedule, MH is flying to and from AKL as an overnight flight with just over 9 hours ground time at AKL to maximize connections at KUL. I don't know about 2 versions of 332 but that seems inefficient since this will split the 6 332s fleet into smaller sub-fleet. 2 aircraft is needed for AKL plus either DPS/CAN during its ground time at KUL. 332 utilization (rough estimation): AKL/CAN - 2 aircraft DAC/DPS - 1 aircraft HKG - 0.7 aircraft (with about 8 hours ground time at KUL) PVG - 0.5 aircraft (with about 12 hours ground time at KUL) DEL reverts back to 333.

Opps. Sorry my bad. I need to proofread my post. No SUB involved, just AKL. MH131 KUL2325 - 1320+1AKL 332 D MH130 AKL2240 - 0605+1KUL 332 D Much better

MH will operate A332 to AKL with new double overnight service to and from AKL wef 15MAY18. MH131 KUL2325 - 1320+1SUB 332 D MH130 AKL2240 - 0605+1KUL 332 D Odd that they are using 332 for this flight (AFAIK, the galleys aren't big enough to cater 2 meal service, so maybe the late evening departure might alleviate that).

Per airlineroute MH S18 updates: 01JUL: CAN on MH376/377; DAC on MH 196/197 01AUG: DEL on MH 190/191; DPS on MH 715/714 01SEP: PVG on MH 386/387 01OCT: HKG on MH78/79

MH will increase its frequency to SUB wef 17APR18 from 7 to 10 weekly: MH873 KUL1315 - 1450SUB 738 246 MH872 SUB1550 - 1930KUL 738 246 And from 06MAY18, from 10 to 12 weekly: MH873 KUL1315 - 1450SUB 738 x15 MH872 SUB1550 - 1930KUL 738 x15 Other changes: - 350 removed from AKL MH 132/133 service (swapped back to 333), surplus of ~1 A350 with 12 weekly NRT and 14 weekly LHR service - All 350 NRT flights (MH 70/71/88/89) will be sold as 3-cabin

No SQ doesn't even come close. I was talking about 33,000 seats to ONE city in any given week from a country's carrier(s). Let's do simple maths, shall we? Given: 33,000 seats per week from a country's carrier(s) Assumption: 500 seats in 380, 7 weekly services Total daily flights = 33,000 / 500 / 7 ~ 9.5 daily 380 services between SIN and ONE city in AU (or 66 weekly 380 services to ONE city). SQ plus other SG-based carriers (Scoot comes to mind) doesn't even come close to 33k seats a week.

Combined. Otherwise there's no way we'd get close and have to renegotiate every now and then. 33,000 seats to one city is a lot. I don't even know if SIN-SYD/MEL gets close to that amount for either SG/AU carriers.

Probably not. D7 reduced its flights to SYD/PER but they didn't file for additional seats to MEL. Also, as of 15AUG17, there were only 88 seats left per week under the current bilateral between MY and AU. However, this doesn't take into account: - D7 flight reductions to SYD and PER - D7 planned services to BNE (applied for, received the rights but didn't utilize) - MH daily 333 service to PER (which will be replaced by 11 weekly 738 services) - MH 4 new weekly 333 BNE flights - OD planned daily 333 service to MEL (which will? be replaced by daily 738/739 KUL-DPS-MEL)

Somewhere in a parallel universe, malaysianrails.com, they are comparing maintenance between Embraer 170 and Airbus 380 since both are planes

And also HKG operates solely underground in a mostly straight line where as KUL's aero train has to operate under harsh tropical weather with turns.

There's money to be made with new equipment, not so much with maintenance You wouldn't know because you didn't pay as much attention as KUL's train. People don't usually pay attention to things happening in other people's backyards. I used to think JFK's aero train was a disaster because it breaks down every time I was there (or at least the one that goes between terminals only) and you can't walk from one terminal to another. So tough luck if you want to go from Jamaica station to T8 and want to skip the rest of the terminals or if you want to go from T8 to T7 (which involve a change at Federal Circle plus going through T1 to T5/6).

Let's hope it gets extended. Just flew QR's 350 and it's a great plane (I prefer 77W J over 350/787 J for longer flights tho) and for a ~7 hour daytime flight, the 359 is perfect! Also, QR 852/853 will be operated by 787s for most of summer.

How did I get pulled into this? I am just a leisure traveler, certainly havent done as many cool things as you did

Fabric. 1A is probably the best seat in F, slightly forward with the 2 windows closer to you than 1K and more private.

Yup it was. I was in it for about 45 minutes in Row 1 (along with an elderly couple) yesterday. Pushed back and was told that the plane had a technical problem and had to be towed back to gate and my flight was canceled. I flew in 9M-MAB an hour later but in Row 6 since Row 1 was fully occupied.

You are selecting the "additional services" tab. I was curious about the Korean Beef which seems to be available on all flights and sounds amazing right now, but it's actually Diabetic Meal (so don't order it unless you want diabetic meal) It's probably just a coding error that an intern messed up

Lucky you I've sat in TG F for KUL-BKK when they closed the upper deck (I got lucky) and I've seen them closing the F section on BKK-SIN. It varies with airlines/situation. MH has 4F/35J configuration in their 350 and they'll sell up to 39J seats but row 1 will be last to assign and will only open if J>35. (hypothetically speaking if they want to block row 1).

I think what you wrote is red herring and please don't quote what politicians said Those are just words/spins - you have to look at the facts. And KLIA2/LCCT2 is just a name (it'd be so much simpler if they just name it Terminal 1 and 2, no?). It doesn't matter if other airports have a LCC terminal. MH could move into T2 if they wanted to (and at some point, they wanted to citing difference in PSC). Why do you think a LCC specific terminal should have the benefits of lower PSC? Don't you think the lower cost should come from the airline and not the airport operator/government? And you mentioned that you feel like you are subsidizing T1 pax whilst using T2 due to lack of facilities. Maybe I not a frequent traveler like you, but the last time I flew out of T2, it still has check-in counters, moving conveyor belts, baggage delivery system, jet bridge, air-cond, toilets, security, immigration counters, and the whole nine yards. What am I missing in T1 that is absent in T2? You also said that "KLIA, being the gateway airport for Malaysians, needs to be affordable to Malaysian travellers." - it is true that KUL is the main gateway for Malaysians, but of all the cities in Malaysia, do you think the greater KL area has the one of the highest, if not the highest, disposable income in Malaysia? What do you think of those pax in KCH/BKI/KBR/JHB/LGK etc. who has to pay the *same* amount of PSC to travel outside of ASEAN but from a "sub-par" airport compared to KUL? Are those pax subsiding KUL T1 pax as well? If I can have it my way, Id prefer those secondary airports have lower PSC due to lower disposable income rather than KUL T2, but then we will discuss about why certain airports have lower PSC, so I think we should just keep everything equal

You do realize that the RM73 non-ASEAN PSC fee for KLIA Terminal 2 is the same amount charged for *all passengers* departing from Malaysia to non-ASEAN destinations right? Regardless if the pax is flying JHB-CAN on AK (non MAHB operated airport) or KCH-SZX or PEN-HKG, it's RM73 for these pax as well. I don't see why KUL T2 should get a lower PSC.

Sounds like an over-entitled blogger, but what's new? MH at least sent him an e-mail notifying about the seat change (AFAIK, no airline has sent me a notification about a seat change, including MH this time around and I was bumped from my seat on KUL-BKI) and apparently it happens all the time (again, it's very rare for MH to move you from an assigned seat unless you are in F-cabin sold as 2-cabin flight). MH only opens up the F-cabin if J-cabin is full (hence you may assign a seat on the 380 F on 2-cabin service to NRT/ICN) but they will kick you out if they can accommodate everyone in the J cabin. I've flown 2-cabin service in 3-cabin plane before (or 3-cabin service in 4-cabin plane). It's a YMMV situation. IME: - CX blocks all F seats prior to check-in. They will open F cabin during OLCI to their Diamonds, OWE as well as pax connecting to/from F cabin - TG closes the F section or the upper deck on the 744 (depending on your luck), but seat re-assignment is usually done at the airport - BA also closes the F section but will open up if needed, but I don't fly BA that much - we should ask the GGL or GCH Because those who uses social media to judge an airline usually don't buy revenue F tickets

Do you think MH has unlimited supply of funds? They are already taking delivery of 12 wide-bodies between 2017 and 2018 (and this excludes the yay or nay on the 380s) - that is a lot of capacity in a very short period of time especially when they weren't expanding that much for the past few years. NS18 is probably one of the largest MH expansion I have seen in years. That's a bilateral issue. No new international slots are expected at HND until around 2020 when Tokyo hosts the Summer Olympics. No Japanese carriers took up HND-KUL authority when Malaysia was awarded a daily slot at HND; hence the Japanese government did not award Malaysian carriers a second slot at HND when the next round opened up (compared to one or two daytime slots at HND from neighboring countries including Vietnam, Philippines, and Indonesia). Now that NH operates HND-KUL, both JL and NH can request for another daily slot at HND to open up another HND-KUL link (if they deem appropriate).

MW dreams - LAX, CDG, FRA, AMS, JNB, EWR, YVR etc. Hindsight is always 20/20, no? It wasn't too long ago when MH was struggling terribly after the twin disasters that prompted MH to shrink. A lot. Once daily 738 to PVG, 3 daily 738 to HKG, pulling out of AMS, CDG, FRA, BNE and a whole slew of others. Imagine this at MH's boardroom meeting in Dec. 2014: Intern: My analysis showed that we will need to lease more wide bodies in 3 years, expand in China by resuming second daily into Shanghai and will be served by 330s on both flights, expand into secondary Chinese cities such as Fuzhou, Haikou, Chengdu, Chungking, Hangzhou, and Nanjing. Others: I want whatever you are smoking! Nobody at that time thought that MH could recover to this level today in just 3 years - expanding rapidly into China now when China was one of MH's worst market then. 350s were ordered to replace the 380s to serve LHR. As bad as MH was back then, at least they knew the value of LHR slots (they could have easily sold it and never return). PS: I am curious about the Haj/Umrah charter plans. Let's say they re-configure the 380s into 2-class configuration with 600 seats (a conservative estimate) and they send 4 380s to MED/JED/RUH (2 spares or just for rotation since only 1 frame is needed for KSA rotation) a day - that's 2,400 available seats to KSA per day or approximately 864,000 seats a year to KSA - is there such a large market for pilgrimage charters (especially when there aren't that many connections that feed to charter flights) year round?

Wow. Talk about tight turnaround time. Even at KUL! For the 1st 332 that will operate KUL-DAC/CAN: CAN: 1:25 DAC: 1:00 KUL: 1:00 and 4:30

Actually there is a market between FRA and KUL - just not the type that LH/MH can afford to fly at the moment. After all, Germany is Malaysia's largest trading partner in the EU. Both MH and LH doesn't have the right aircraft to serve this route. LH was stuck with fuel guzzlers 340s on this route whilst MH had 772s before they were retired (and 380 is definitely not possible). And it was extremely difficult for both LH and MH to sustain this flight since neither had beyond agreements after reaching the end-point.