Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About geoff.leo

  • Rank

  1. Nice figures. Alas, the devil is in the details. Out of the 25 million, on average 10 to 11 million per annum are made up of Singaporeans. Visitor numbers from Thailand also seem pretty high in the millions, but a huge part of that number come from our land border crossings in the north. To a lesser extent, the same can be said for visitor numbers from Indonesia and Brunei in the east. When you take away these figures, the number of tourists who will come specifically to Malaysia for a holiday is way less than the 25 million figure. Malaysia's actual inbound tourist figures are probably closer to that of the Philippines. Arrivals from mainland China may look high, but they are appallingly low in comparison with other Southeast countries. A significant chunk of them come to Malaysia only as a tag-on from their trips to Singapore or Thailand. That explains the low presence of Chinese carriers in Malaysia. And it's not just the Chinese. Intra Asian travel has boomed big time in recent years with rising prosperity all over. Koreans, Indians, Japanese, Thais, us Malaysians, Singaporeans, Hongkongers and Taiwanese are all big outbound tourist contributors within Asia. Malaysia unfortunately, doesn't rank high on many people's wish list. And this from people within our region who know of our existence. Australians - and they are a travel-happy bunch - couldn't care less. Forget Europe or America. That explains the relative low presence of foreign carriers in Malaysia. That explains our low hotel yields. So no, tourism is not doing well in Malaysia. Get real.
  2. For those who remember the heydays of Subang airport. Will surely bring back fond (if youre an aviation buff) memories to those who grew up in Subang Jaya in the 1990s. https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/286240/world-routes-25-2008-host-kuala-lumpur-network-in-nov-1995/
  3. I think for SIA, theres no loss in this if it means more feeder traffic from Malaysia. Additional ancillary income from MRO, training, etc would be a plus too. So its a case of sure why not. As for MAS, well done in strengthening Singapores position as an aviation hub. Its the one thing theyve always been good at.
  4. I can see a reason for having an airport to serve southern Kedah and parts of mainland Penang, but not a lofty one. Northern Perakians are in no mans land for air travel. That will not change even with an airport in Kulim. Much faster to get to PIA by getting off the NSE to the under utilised second bridge, which is close to the airport. Parts of mainland Penang that would benefit from a Kulim airport would be the northern side of Butterworth, Kepala Batas and maybe Bukit Mertajam. The rest of the mainland population is close enough to either bridges. 30 to 45 minutes travel time isnt unreasonable. And most of the current and future townships on mainland Penang are close to either bridges, especially the second bridge. A Kulim airport is less competitive than the current PIA. So, in reality the catchment area for a Kulim airport will be limited to only southern Kedah and bits of northern mainland Penang. While not insignificant in terms of population, a Kulim airport will not get more than a couple of daily KL flights. Some have mentioned about freight. While Kulim has that high tech industrial park, it is no Penang. The logistics industry isnt gonna establish a hub at a Kulim airport just because of a couple of dozen factories. It only takes an hour or so to get that semicon chip from Kulim to PIAs cargo terminal. In summary to Kedahs politicians, go ahead with building that airport. But you wont need anything longer than a 2000m runway and a couple of stands. Dont bother wasting money with taxiways. You wont need it. RM200million cukup?
  5. Malaysia Airlines has to be honest with itself. For many domestic and regional destinations, there isn’t a point having Business Class cabins. There isn’t even having a point having a full-service Economy Class product for many destinations. Short of starting up it’s own LCC (which it neither has the money to set up nor expertise to run it), MAS could follow some “full service” European carriers in this regard, e.g. British Airways’ Euro Traveller. Some might say the value of the brand may be diluted. I think with smart marketing and pricing, it can work. It has worked for the European flag carriers. And you can’t dilute a brand that’s already pretty much plain water. Assuming the current issues with the MAX are fixed and MAS sticks with the 737 for it’s narrow body operations, something like 30 all-Economy B737-8 Max and about 15 to 20 2-class B737-10 Max for certain higher yielding regional destinations would work. Or they could use this opportunity to switch to Airbus narrow bodies with a similar split between the A320neo/A321neo. Get rid of the A380s. Yesterday. A 30-aircraft strong wide body fleet should suffice. A mix of A330neo with a few pieces of A350 if London is to be maintained. Or switch to Boeing. 30 pieces of 787-9, of which the majority will be in regional configuration. A few pieces to be configured for long haul flights to London if that must be retained. Whether it’s Boeing or Airbus, get rid of First Class. Business Class seats to be around the 25 to 30-seat mark. No need for Premium Economy. I feel that too many people are looking at the wrong airlines for MAS to emulate. Singapore Airlines and Singapore isn’t the one. They’re competing in a different league. KL/Malaysia isn’t Singapore. Just accept that KL will never match Singapore and Bangkok. If there ever was a chance, Malaysia has stuffed it up many times, from the government, the national airline, airport operator and industry as a whole. We simply suck at this. If you accept that, then you will pick the right battles and the make the best out of current circumstances. Be a decent regional airline. Not great, but decent. Just break even. Small loss pun tak apa. As long as sustainable and no need to keep bailing out. That would be a great achievement. Not the greatest ambition. But get real. It’s Malaysia.
  6. KLIA's flaws are so long one could write a book about it. It's been a disappointing 20 years. And with KLIA2, the disappointment continues. MAHB will continue to syiok sendiri.
  7. MAHB is by far the worst-run GLC at present. MAS and Proton were strong contenders but both are now taking bitter medicine. They have no freaking clue on how to run a big international airport. Fullstop. Khazanah, MOT......MAHB needs a complete overhaul.
  8. Whatever the reasons for the keeping the A380s, if they're gonna do it for real, then may i suggest a repainting of the livery. And please, wash them up. With the exception of the A380s, I don't think the number of A333s and A332s are overly ambitious. Barely enough in my opinion. Destinations like Bangkok and Jakarta could do with 1 or 2 widebody services during peak morning/evening hours. Hong Kong and Taipei should see more widebody operations too. And if only MAS could secure rights for Haneda. Beijing and Shanghai services should be increased back to pre-MH370 levels of capacity. Bring back Brisbane. And do something about Perth. The A350s - and the B787 if it comes - give plenty of options. They don't have to just do long haul flights. Plenty of operators do good business flying their new A350s and B787s on their regional medium haul flights. And please go back to Europe. Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam. Come on! Stop yielding to the ME3, SQ, etc.
  9. Someone needs to get rid of those old 747s scattered all over KLIA. What an eyesore. And MAHB, please flatten those unsightly "Not-So-Grand Canyons" at the southern end of the airport. Back to topic....she ain't a Boeing, but she looks good nonetheless in MAS colours.
  10. The B787 and the A350 are uber efficient. Although they were both designed for long haul missions, their efficiency means that they can also be deployed for regional flights profitably. Many 787 and 350 operators do that. It gives an airline options. So MAS shouldn't have any problems finding destinations to fly them to. Like many here, I was initially surprised that only 8 B789s were ordered. But looking into the details, it's more of leveraging on the existing B737 MAX orders and bringing the wide-body requirements into play. It wasn't a typical outright wide-body only order. This order only addresses the medium term. Airbus is still very much in the picture for the wide-body replacement exercise. 6 A359s and 8 B789s simply ain't enough. With regards to all the government/PM/BN bashing on the nature of the 787 orders, it's still better than having me as Prime Minister. I would have made MAS order something like 50 B787s, 50 B777Xs and a dozen B747-8s for good measure. Nevermind that I can't think of where to fly these planes to. It looks good and that's good enough. #getyourprioritiesright
  11. I wonder if we'll hear something from MAS and Boeing in the coming days during the PM's trip to the US. Would definitely kick things off to a good start when meeting with the man who's been trumpeting Buy American
  12. I can't see Qantas putting their own metal into low-yield ultra competitive KUL. At best, maybe a Jetstar B787 service from Melbourne or Sydney or a narrowbody service from Perth. Pretty impressive stuff for the SIN-London market. 4 daily A380 and 3 daily B77W flights to choose from to get to Heathrow and an upcoming B787 service to Gatwick.
  13. Totally agree that 4 A350s is cutting it too thin for double daily LHR operations. They should have 5 or 6. Minimum. There are more than enough destinations within MAS's regional network that can sustain (or rather crying out for) widebody operations to maximise aircraft utilization. If anything I think they should get more A350s, with options for the larger A350-1000. Speaking of which, what's the news with the temporary A330s? It's already August. And still no news on long-term widebody replacement.
  14. The A330neo hasn't really caught on with the world's major airlines. For good reason. This aircraft is, at its core, a heavily modified machine from the 1990s. At best, it's role is nothing more than a bargaining argument when airlines go shopping for the B787. Its only advantage lies in its relatively cheap upfront costs, which is alright in the short term. For the last 15-20 years, MAS has been one step behind in the product cycles of both Airbus and Boeing. They look set to continue this trend unfortunately. The B787 may be more expensive. Some may even say it's unnecessary looking at MAS' current and foreseeable future network. But countless airlines, both full service and budget operators, use this aircraft as their regional workhorses. The aircraft clearly does wonders for medium-haul missions and is a good fit for thinner long haul flights. It gives an airline OPTIONS.
  15. Come on China Eastern, now that Malaysia and China are BFFs, surely it should be feasible now to give back at least one daily flight back to MU mainline?
  • Create New...