Kenneth T
-
Content Count
1,583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kenneth T
-
-
It is proven high yield place frequency and schedule as the top criteria when choosing which airline to fly.
On many of MH intercontinental routes (e.g. FRA, LAX, EWR, etc), 772 is too big for daily service. On some regional routes, MH demand is bigger than 734 but couldn’t sustain A333 e.g. MLE, MNL, HAN, BKK, SGN, DPS, etc.
If MH order 788, MH could support daily service to FRA and secure higher yield, and capture more market share on regional routes.
After A33E, MH will need to replace 772. A33E couldn’t substitute 772 to EUR and USA, MH will has no choice but to order A350 or 77W.
It is safe to say; in 2016, MH will remain like now, unable to offer daily service to many destinations like FRA, unable to compete with SQ, EK, EY and has low yield on most routes.
That's the point, the management should accept the fact that they are lack of product development especially in fleet renewal. A333E is only a TEMPORARY solution and by the technology lies behind this aircraft is not considered advanced. The so called improvement on the A333E is only part of the marketing skill to increase the sales of the aircraft. Besides that, ths aircraft is not made by FULLY COMPOSITE material that make it more fuel efficient.
Sad to say that, MH is loosing it's market share to premium airlines like SQ, EK and CX. The fleets that MH is operating is no longer advanced and why don't the management face the fact? Look at SQ, the leased bird on the A333 had been fully refurbished but again that is only a short term measures to cater for some of the operational needs.
-
It is proven high yield place frequency and schedule as the top criteria when choosing which airline to fly.
On many of MH intercontinental routes (e.g. FRA, LAX, EWR, etc), 772 is too big for daily service. On some regional routes, MH demand is bigger than 734 but couldn’t sustain A333 e.g. MLE, MNL, HAN, BKK, SGN, DPS, etc.
If MH order 788, MH could support daily service to FRA and secure higher yield, and capture more market share on regional routes.
After A33E, MH will need to replace 772. A33E couldn’t substitute 772 to EUR and USA, MH will has no choice but to order A350 or 77W.
It is safe to say; in 2016, MH will remain like now, unable to offer daily service to many destinations like FRA, unable to compete with SQ, EK, EY and has low yield on most routes.
That's the point, the management should accept the fact that they are lack of product development especially in fleet renewal. A333E is only a TEMPORARY solution and by the technology lies behind this aircraft is not considered advanced. The so called improvement on the A333E is only part of the marketing skill to increase the sales of the aircraft. Besides that, ths aircraft is not made by FULLY COMPOSITE material that make it more fuel efficient.
Sad to say that, MH is loosing it's market share to premium airlines like SQ, EK and CX. The fleets that MH is operating is no longer advanced and why don't the management face the fact? Look at SQ, the leased bird on the A333 had been fully refurbished but again that is only a short term measures to cater for some of the operational needs.
-
It is proven high yield place frequency and schedule as the top criteria when choosing which airline to fly.
On many of MH intercontinental routes (e.g. FRA, LAX, EWR, etc), 772 is too big for daily service. On some regional routes, MH demand is bigger than 734 but couldn’t sustain A333 e.g. MLE, MNL, HAN, BKK, SGN, DPS, etc.
If MH order 788, MH could support daily service to FRA and secure higher yield, and capture more market share on regional routes.
After A33E, MH will need to replace 772. A33E couldn’t substitute 772 to EUR and USA, MH will has no choice but to order A350 or 77W.
It is safe to say; in 2016, MH will remain like now, unable to offer daily service to many destinations like FRA, unable to compete with SQ, EK, EY and has low yield on most routes.
That's the point, the management should accept the fact that they are lack of product development especially in fleet renewal. A333E is only a TEMPORARY solution and by the technology lies behind this aircraft is not considered advanced. The so called improvement on the A333E is only part of the marketing skill to increase the sales of the aircraft. Besides that, ths aircraft is not made by FULLY COMPOSITE material that make it more fuel efficient.
Sad to say that, MH is loosing it's market share to premium airlines like SQ, EK and CX. The fleets that MH is operating is no longer advanced and why don't the management face the fact? Look at SQ, the leased bird on the A333 had been fully refurbished but again that is only a short term measures to cater for some of the operational needs.
-
It is proven high yield place frequency and schedule as the top criteria when choosing which airline to fly.
On many of MH intercontinental routes (e.g. FRA, LAX, EWR, etc), 772 is too big for daily service. On some regional routes, MH demand is bigger than 734 but couldn’t sustain A333 e.g. MLE, MNL, HAN, BKK, SGN, DPS, etc.
If MH order 788, MH could support daily service to FRA and secure higher yield, and capture more market share on regional routes.
After A33E, MH will need to replace 772. A33E couldn’t substitute 772 to EUR and USA, MH will has no choice but to order A350 or 77W.
It is safe to say; in 2016, MH will remain like now, unable to offer daily service to many destinations like FRA, unable to compete with SQ, EK, EY and has low yield on most routes.
That's the point, the management should accept the fact that they are lack of product development especially in fleet renewal. A333E is only a TEMPORARY solution and by the technology lies behind this aircraft is not considered advanced. The so called improvement on the A333E on is only part of the marketing skill to increase the sales of the aircraft. Besides that, ths aircraft is not made by FULLY COMPOSITE material that make it more fuel efficient.
Sad to say that, MH is loosing it's market share to premium airlines like SQ, EK and CX. The fleets that MH is operating is no longer advanced and why don't the management face the fact? Look at SQ, the leased bird on the A333 had been fully refurbished but again that is only a short term measures to cater for some of the operational needs.
-
The upside to that is there will be a sugar daddy to run up to for pocket money when things get financially uncomfortable
- it's been a tried and tested formula over the years MH's existence is quite assured so long as there is still loose change in said sugar daddy's pocket
Not so sure lah when the petro-money or other sources of easy money dry up (as they will eventually) ......
I can't agreed more. Besides that, the management is lack or proper long term fleet planning, for instance i don't see why they are giving away the early delivery slots on the A380s, though the aircraft has been delayed for more than 2 years when it's finally delivered to MH. No doubt, new aircraft such as the technologically advanced B787s and A350s may not be available yet at the present moment but any delay again will allow MH to get compensation or discounts on any future purchase on either AIRBUS or BOEING aircraft.
-
Im sorry to say that CX does not has a fleet renewal of more than 15 years, let's get the fact right. MH is a premier airline, so can't be comparing that to low cost airline for sure.
-
Actually I find MAS to be reasonably cheap. Each time I travel, I compare them with SQ, and each time they are cheaper by quite a significant margin.
I believe the the low and basic fares are only a cosmetic pricing in order to attract attention. This is especially true, for instance a return ticket on a full Y fares from BKI-KUL-BKI and vice versa cost more than RM1,300. The full fares are always more expensive than the region's premium airlines.
-
MH's ticket is always more expensive than some of the world's tip top airlines with the associated higher cost. I don't see any reasons that MH's financial result is always not satisfactory as compare to SQ, EK, CX and etc. Let's not forget that, MH has a lower staff cost as compare to premium airlines like SQ , CX and etc. Having a A330s for the next 10-15 years or so will certainly not do any long term advantage to MH.
-
Few years ago, MH was not financially healthy. There's alot to consider ie crew training, maintenance equipments. Why spend extra when you already have the basic needs for the type of aircraft? Yes I must agree the 787's and the 350's are awesome in all aspect. Aircraft are not cars. They spend millions buying them, so of course we could expect airlines to max their life span. With proper maintenance it shouldn't be a problem. Like I said earlier and I'll say again, most passengers don't care what aircraft as long as it has IFE, comfy seats, good service. Business pax go onboard and they sleep, most will have their makan at the golden lounge. Just my 2 cents...
Let's blame noone but the management itself, a very corrupted people who misused theirs' power for theirs' own benefit. Till today, the prevous charman Dato Tajuddin manage to run away like that without any further justice from the Malaysian Law. The shame doesn't just ended like that, before it was handed to Dato Idris Jalal, they found that corrupted practice existed and the company is paying a high price for a bottle of mineral water. Today, we are more concern on issue like global warming and etc, I don't see A330s is more enviromentally friendly than the B787s in this sense. Maintenance wise is likely to be higher in the next 10-15 years if fewer airlines are operating A330s by then. Spare parts may be difficult to source in by then. Management always sees what is immediate than in longer terms.
Quotes from A.Net thread above:
Let's not forget that SQ has ordered the the B787s and the A330s is only a temporary measures to cater for the needs for the next few years or so. SQ is renowned for being one of the youngest fleet in the world. I don't think this applies to MH.
----------
Permit me quote from the thread again!
-
I don't think the A330s is a more superior aircraft than the B787s. By looking at the new features like larger window, better humidity and etc, A330s is far lacked behind. What I can say is B787s will not be an old junk in 10 years time but A330s is likely the case. Let's not forget that, there are currently 3 variants on the B787s of which only one variant if which we had seen.
-
If MH had ordered the B787s earlier on, they can get the delivery slot in few years time so in the meantime, the existing A333s can still be utilised for the next 1-4 years. That's show that the management had never planned well ahead. Again, by replacing the existing A333s with a so claimed improved version of A333s indirectly implies that the management does not see well ahead. Let's not forget that most of MH fleets are already more than 15 years before the management plans to renew that.
-
Airline is a very competitive business, net profit is less than 5%.
Comparing 744 and A380, A380 operation cost is less than 3% higher than 744 but carry about 25% more pax. If SQ decided to price A380 ticket at MH 744 cost, MH will never make profit and more likely will be in losses because more pax will choose newer and cheaper SQ.
Exactly....in an ever competetive airlines industry, passengers are well aware of what really happen when a new product is available.
-
Their order for A333E is good for now, it's probably the best thing they can do to have brand new planes as early as next year, but yes, it's not good enough for the long run.
Last time Azran claimed that MAS was try to copycat Air Asia's order of A333 and A350. But no, it didn't happen. As to why, your guess is as good as mine (without inside info).
But with MAS's weak financial position, understandably they are quite risk aversive as mistakes can easily lead to their dismiss. Especially so with investments that involve huge sum of money. Still much uncertainties with the upcoming 787/A350.. Guess they are taking a wait and see approach for now until things become clearer.
Having said that, they can't wait and see for too long or they risk the same problem they are experiencing now repeating itself again, when their fleet will be technologically inferior (some say obsolete) when compared to their competitors and they don't have any new planes coming.
At some point, they will need to have the courage to take the plunge, take the risk and order those planes (hopefully sooner rather than later).
B787s will certainly become reality just a matter of time. The birds are now in the air just not in commercial operations yet. MH has been waiting for long enough and that's why they can't get the birds earlier. Having said that, if they continue to wait, then they may have to wait even longer if eventually the place order for B787s.
-
As I have said, MH is buying instead of leasing - so capital costs are lower. And as I have said before, fuel burn is only one of the operating costs of an airline. There are other costs too. At the end of the day, only MH knows their numbers and bottom line. We don't even know what kind of deal that is being struck for the A333's (by MH) or B787's (by other airlines). At this point, the advantages and disadvantages that we have been debating on are merely our own speculative thoughts. So lets wait and see when the time comes...
Again, the focus is short term rather than long term gains. The situation lies with that in the past MH renewal plan is very very slow comparable to SQ. It shouldn't be much threat if MH adopts a shorter fleet renewal strategy. Passengers know nowadays tends to be well educated than before. For instance, I am sure most passengers can tell what is the flight experience on board A300B4 with B777s. Same situation applies to the A333E and the B787s. The technology behind the A330s will certainly be outdated in the coming years. By then, maintainance cost will also turn to be higher. I just don't understand why can't the management get things right instead of pointing fingers at certain factors or someone when the company's financial statement fail to achieve a satisfactory result. I won't be surprise MH is always lack behind of some of the tip top airlines such as SQ and CX.
-
The vast majority of pax who fly don't really know or care what planes they go on. All they care about is the cost, the comfort, the lounges, the loyalty programmes and the convenience of the timetable. Only enthusiasts like us worry and bitch about aircraft details!
Extensive marketing efforts by Emirates, SQ and etc, nowadays passengers are more well educated and aware of the new product and aircraft that they are flying in. In addition to that, new features and comfort that are available on today's most technologically advanced aircraft often left good memory behind. Having said that, if an airline operator is using for the example an aircraft which burn more fuel, they are not able to lower the price of the ticket due to cost factor which makes lots sense.
-
It is better for MH to lease there planes as someone will take the deappreciation and it won't build into MH cost as well whoever said MH 10year 330's planes need to replace this is Malaysia not Singapore there are no deapprecitation laws in Malaysia.
I agreed.....MH is far behind in fleet renewal and that's the fact.
-
Any cost cutting is welcome, whether it is today or in 5 years. As I have said time and again, the perceived cost savings are still paper savings because those new generation aircraft are yet to enter commercial service - so the numbers are only projected cost savings which may or may not materialise. Furthermore, there may be other associated costs of operating this kind of aircraft which are unforeseen. Another thing is that while the B787/A350 may save some operating costs, the capital cost of acquiring the aircraft will be higher than that of the A333. So the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP may not be vastly superior. Finally, the routes on which MH plans to deploy the A333 may not see such significant operating cost savings as touted.
Let's not forget that A333E is definitely not as enviromentally friendly as the new B787s and A350s. A333Es will definitely an old junk in 15 years time. Today's frequent traveller are smart enough and to choose the airlines which can offer them best value with of course not compromising on the service. Just look at SQ, Emirates, CX for example. We can't simply fail to ignore that certain airlines like Emirates, Ethihad and even Qatar are now emerging and far better than MH in terms of products wise and value wise.
-
In the history of MH, the management will only decide for fleet renewal when a specific type of aircraft has been in operations for more than 10 years or even more than 15 years or longer. I don't think B787s and A350s are still not technologically proven by then.
-
MH has already stated that it wishes to move from a 100% leased fleet to a 70% leased fleet in order to cut costs. Their most urgently needed replacements are the A332/A333's, all of which are over 10 years old. They also need the replacements urgently and they want new aircraft fitted with equipment that they can specify themselves for ALL the aircraft. MH is probably very happy it can cut its costs immediately rather than having to wait for unproven aircraft to be delivered. They learnt their lessons from the A380 delays...
A33E is only a temporary solution for a period of 3-5 years. There's no point cutting cost at short period of time while in the long run the aircraft is not economically viable to the company. What's the management failed to consider is the lower cost of running the B787s and A350s in long term. Does that mean the current financial statement of the company is more important than in the next 10 years?
-
Instead of outright ownership, what about lease A33E before taking delivery of 787/A350 like SQ?
In my opinion, a better solution is to lease these A33E for short period of time while waiting for the B787 and A350s
Boeing is still tweaking their production line as we speak. They are only going to assemble the first ANA 787 after, what, two years off from the original plan?
Kenneth: is it wrong to have only european aircrafts in MAS's fleet?
KKLee: The A380 is coming the end of next year, with an *purported* rate of one every month, so the 744 will have some breathing room.
As for the 772s, Who knows what is in store in the next couple of years? For all we know, there is a 77W offer to MAS that is behind close doors.
It's not wrong...and i had never pointed such word. It's just a curiousity what's the reason behind.
-
If the age of MH A333 is the reason and urgency to be replaced by A33E. What about 744 and 772? 744 is older than A333 and by 2016, 772 will be as old as A333 currently. As A33E don’t have the range to replace 772 to EUR, MH to have another widebody type?
You got the point. The current situation seems likely that the future Malaysia skies dominated by European manufactured aircraft...wonder why?
-
Last major 787 order; UA ordered 25 numbers of 787 and A350 in December 09, deliveries are expected between 2016 and 2019.
If MH request, believe earlier 787 delivery slot is avialable e.g. 2014/15.
SQ A33E are leased and will be replaced by 787 and A350. But MH is unlikely to replace A33E until 2021 the earliest.
No doubt, A330, A300, 757, 767, DC-10, DC-3 will be flying well into 2020 and beyond.
MH never replace it's fleet that earlier....that's sound impossible
-
By the time MH gets the 330's they will be considered inefficent and usless
I agreed...in the past, management will always blame previous management for not making wise decision and i foresee that will continue....a silly excuse always
-
Now that is a seriously disturbed thought
I like the 330 very much but not so much on the soon to be born cousin, 350. I have always been a 787 guy
When MAS place another order next time replacing the 333, i hope it's going to be the 789. I feel that the 333 is a bit too big for certain MAS routes. 332 will definitely suit MAS better in terms of capacity but i believe many complained it is too heavy for short/medium-haul flights hence the bigger sibling is the more appropriate type. This is where 789 comes into play. It has almost the same seating capacity as the 332 and it can haul more freights. If the 789 do meet its designed operating targets, it will be the perfect bird for MAS.
Exactly....in terms of less fuel cost and etc. I don't think the A333 can do better than this.
MAS New 15 A330-300X + 4 A330-200 Freighter
in General Aviation
Posted · Report reply
Exactly...but MH is not taking advantage of the cancellation slots by some of the airlines instead they decided to proceed with the A333s.