geoff.leo

The aerotrain is a disaster. Frequent breakdowns and when it works, the aircon doesn't work sometimes. And MAHB does a horrible job when that happens. Poor signs and communications to redirect passengers and insufficient buses. The aircon in many parts of the satellite terminal is bad too, especially on the second floor. General amenities like the toilets look old and is in dire need of an upgrade. Immigration is horrible if you're a foreigner. Baggage collection waiting times are horrendously long - probably one of the worst among major international airports anywhere in the world. The arrival hall and pick up area remains a mess. Airport staff are just hopelessly hopeless in basic English. And here's a suggestion, forget the forest in the airport in the whatever crap. Nobody gives a hoot about it anymore anyway. Get rid of those trees in the centre of the satellite terminal. You'd free up a lot more space and make it look less cluttered. KLIA/MAHB/MoT, please just buy a ticket to Singapore for a one night trip and for goodness sake, LEARN! I don't even wanna start with the joke that is KLIA2. And please, don't start comparing us with the likes of BKK, MNL, CGK, etc. Malaysian politicians hate being compared with the red dot. But the fact is, we are just a couple of hundred miles north of the world's best bar none. So suck it up and learn from them.

I could see a reason for upgrading the apron area or the taxiways. But I think the 2.1km runway is adequate enough for Sandakan's needs. That's good enough for the occasional regional widebody flight. MAHB and MOT, if you're serious about airports, please fix up KLIA1 and Penang.

I always thought that MAS should have retained the 777s until they figured out their long term widebody replacement plans. I guess it was understandable why they were so eager to get rid of them. But a refurbished set of 777s would have addressed their current capacity issues. Moving forward, I don't think MAS has the economics of scale to have both the 787 and 350. It would be either one, and I think looking at where MAS is right now, the 350 would suit them best. Maybe throw in a few 300neos too.

AirAsia - B733, A320 AirAsia X - A333 All Nippon Airways - B763 Ansett Australia - B743, B762 Austrian Airlines - A320, B772 Bangkok Airways - A319, A320 Berjaya Air - DHC7 British Airways - A320, B734, B752, B763 Cathay Pacific - B743, B744, B77W China Southern Airlines - B735, B752 China Airlines - A306, B744 Finnair - A320 Firefly - ATR72 Jetstar Asia - A320 Korean Air - MD11 Lufthansa - A320 Malaysia Airlines - A332, A333, B732, B734, B735, B738, B744, B772, DC10 Qantas - B744, B763 Scoot - B789 Singapore Airlines - A313, A333, A388, B744, B772, B773, B77W Silkair - A319, A320 South African Airways - A306 Sri Lankan Airlines - A320, A343 Thai Airways - A306, B734, B772 Thai AirAsia - A320 Tigerair - A319, A320 Virgin Australia - B738

AKL AMS ARN ATH BCN BKI BKK BLR BOM BNE CAN (old Baiyun) CCU CGK CHC CMB CPH CPT CTS DEL DME DMK DPS DXB FCO FRA GMP (back when it was known as SEL) GRU HAN HEL HKG HKG (closed Kai Tak) HKT HND IAH ICN IST JFK JHB JNB KHH KIX KUL LAX LGK LGW LHR MAD MAN MEL MLE MNL MUC MXP NKG NRT PEK PEN PER PNH PVG RDN REP RGN SFO SGN SHA SIN SYD SZB TGG TOD TPE USM VIE

It should, but it shouldn't. In an ideal world, MAS would have two product lines - one to maintain it's full service business and another to compete in the low-cost segment. But it's in no position to take out such a risky venture at this stage. It needs to get its house sorted out first and get back to basics. It's still some distance from achieving that. To venture now into the low-cost business would be biting more than it can chew. To enter the game now would be to go against the mighty groups of AirAsia, Cebu Pacific, Lion, and soon the Vietnamese. Tiger/Scoot might have finally broken even. But that's with the current low oil prices. Moving forward and looking at the deliveries, over-capacity at Tiger/Scoot will become an issue. They can't, and probably will never, match AirAsia's unit cost, yet fight for the same low yield prices and routes. One wonders if it would have stayed afloat if it wasn't for the backing and intervention by SIA/Temasek. SIA, a well-run, profitable company with about four times MAS' annual revenue is still struggling to make it's LCC business work. And yet it has had it's fair share of burnt fingers over the years. MAS would just end up with chopped hands.

The mistake was keeping the fares unchanged for a long time. Increasing it drastically overnight creates too much of a shocker to the system. It would have been better if the fares were gradually increased over the years, making it easier for travellers to adjust to the fare hikes. I'd also like to see the government extending the ERL to the western side of the Klang Valley. The ERL is useless for anyone in the suburbs of PJ, Subang, Klang, Shah Alam, etc. It requires significant backtracking from KL Sentral.

About bloody time. KLIA Main/Satellite has been looking tired for a long time. As for Penang, I think we all know why it will always get overlooked. I think though, that Putrajaya could use a major airport expansion project in Penang to score some brownie points.

Heathrow needs a third runway. Gatwick needs a second. Both need that additional runway. Badly. Birmingham (longer runway) and Manchester (upgrade and expansion of the international terminal) should be upgraded too.

Qantas will have to sort out their operations at Perth for this route to work. Qantas' Perth domestic operations currently sit at Terminal 4, west of the airfield. The international terminal (Terminal 1) sits east of the airfield. Anyone who knows Perth's layout will know this is going to be a nightmare for feeder traffic from Qantas' domestic and regional (Q-link) services. For this route to work, Qantas would have to convince the authorities to allow international operations at Terminal 1. Qantas only has one international route out of Perth (to Singapore) at present and so this would be easy to move. This would require some works at Terminal 1 for CIQ facilities, segregation of international / domestic pax flow, etc. This will take time and as we know from all things aviation in the West, things move at snail's pace when it comes to planning, approval, etc. Still, it is the easier option. The other option would be to move all of Qantas' operations to T1/T2 but the infrastructure there is inadequate for Qantas at present. So, unless Qantas can convince the WA and federal governments for funding and authorisation for Option 1, I doubt they will launch this route. And if they do with the current layout, one is better off connecting through the Middle East or elsewhere.

There's no escaping the fact that this just speaks volumes of KUL (and Malaysia as a whole) being well and truly moving down the aviation value chain. Among all the major Asian capital cities, KUL already has the least representation of the major Asian flag carriers. Lets not even get to the European and US flag carriers. That KUL can't even support a sustainable operation from Cathay (it's Hong Kong for crying out loud, not some obscure city unknown to Malaysians) is a disappointment. That there's minimal differences in service for regional flights between Dragon and Cathay and that they're still maintaining a "strong" presence at a group level in the KUL market is perhaps missing the point. It's about profile, something KUL was already struggling with with major carriers. On the other hand though, KUL has had no problems attracting carriers from Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even North Korea's Air Koryo. I am all for diversity of airlines. But one can't help but feel that's a sad consolation for KUL (even in this area, Bangkok does much much better).

Totally did not see this one coming. What's more, 2 new destinations. Daily. Barcelona could work. It's a sizeable low cost hub. And the reinstatement of scheduled services between Malaysia and Spain. We haven't seen this since MAS stopped their DC-10 services to Madrid a million years ago.

Didn't know the Hong Leong group diversified its portfolio to include the airline business. ;-)

The best place for spotting back in those days were the seafood restaurants after the AIROD building, further up the road. If Runway 15 was in use, you were literally within a stone's throw distance from aircraft taxiing for the holding point of Runway 15. And you had a clear view of aircraft on approach and touchdown. The view was less spectacular if Runway 33 was in use. Most landing aircraft would have vacated at the first intersection (near AIROD and Terminal 3) after landing and you wouldn't get to see much of anything. But some of the heavies (and the occasional 737 that floated) would take the second intersection, which is smack where the seafood restaurants were. Nothing like a 747's engines pointing at you with landing lights still on while you're having dinner in the open air.

Strike a deal with Airbus and the leasing companies to get rid of the A380s and bring in say, 25 - 30 pieces of the A350-900 and 5 - 10 pieces of the A350-1000. Replace the soon to be outdated narrowbody fleet. As a long time 737 operator, strike a bargain with Boeing for the 737 MAX. Boeing needs the numbers to catch up with the A320neo. 60 - 70 pieces would be ideal for MAS. If anything, that's to maintain a relationship with both Airbus and Boeing and to keep either one honest. And perhaps, pay close attention to the potential development of the so-called MoM aircraft (757 replacement if you like). Might suit an airline like MAS pretty well.

It just reflects a part of the work culture problem that is endemic in Malaysia, especially in the GLCs and government agencies/departments. It's unfair to paint everyone with the same stroke of brush, and there are many good people in the GLCs and civil service. Some GLCs have shown tremendous improvement in recent years. But lets not kid ourselves. It's still a different world from the private sector. That said, Mueller's choice of words could have been better.

Nice to see Singapore Airlines revamping their US West Coast operations. Arrival timings into Singapore are much better than existing ones for SQ15 (SFO-ICN) and SQ11 (LAX-NRT). The revamping of their operations at LAX also mean better utilization of aircraft and crew. They may disappoint a few with the removal of A380 services to LAX. But there's nothing wrong at all with SQ's premium-heavy B77Ws. As for GRU, the writing was always on the wall.

Hope the government learns from this. Setting up an airline is no easy task. Competition is always good, but it has to be sensible and sustainable. Rayani has been appalling in every sense. But they should not have been given an AOC in the first place. Malaysia would be wise not to go down the path of having Merpatis, Bouraqs, Sriwijayas, Adam Airs and what have you nots.

Fact of matter is, Malaysia Airlines has never really been the top source for tourists coming into Malaysia. We may boast very high tourist numbers, but a good half of them are Singaporeans. And for the other half, a good part of them make Malaysia as a stop from their travels via Singapore or Bangkok. Has always been the case. In recent years, with air ticket prices coming down, more via the Middle East. But even in this area, KL pales in comparison with BKK and SIN in the number of frequencies and/or products being offered by the ME3. Malaysia isn't the in the same league as Thailand or Singapore. Thailand is Thailand - it sells by itself. The big international hotel chains have a better footprint in Phuket than KL. Don't even get started with Bangkok. Singapore has always, still is and will continue to be a hub for everything, like it or not. With MAS' small international footprint, you can't blame the Tourism Ministry.

It is painful to watch. But sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. The tie up with Emirates does makes sense. For MH, the benefits are self explanatory. In any case, what other choice does it have? For Emirates, it's a low risk venture on their side. Not that they desperately need it, but business is business and if you can fill up a seat or two or more, why not? In any case, the aviation industry is a dynamic one. When they get their house sorted, perhaps we might see the national airline resurrecting their long-haul business again some day. JAL, Iberia, Qantas and the likes are solid examples. It is pitiful though, to see so many good people leaving (or being forced to leave) Malaysia Airlines.

A second runway for Penang is a nice-to-have rather than a must-have. What Penang really needs is more land for expanding both the passenger and cargo terminals. But there's no land left around the airport. I can't see where a new terminal would fit, let alone a runway. Would be ideal if Batu Maung wasn't so built up and they would have land to develop the airport South of the runway. But that's not practical now.

Ideally, it would have been good to see Gatwick getting it's second runway together with Heathrow getting it's third. I don't see a need for Gatwick to compromise. Plenty of land available and noise isn't that big of an issue down in quiet Sussex. It's obviously a popular airport in it's own right and operating almost at full capacity with that single runway. You get the feeling that the British work tirelessly and passionately to limit aviation growth at all costs. And a bit disappointing that Heathrow won't be a 24-hour airport even with the third runway. They could have worked something out like what Haneda did, keeping the airport open at night but with reduced slots for those late timings. Just imagine the potentially astronomical passenger and aircraft movement figures if that were to happen.

Yields on the kangaroo route aren't what they are 5 to 10 years back. Of the South East Asian carriers, only the fittest of them all - Singapore Airlines, has been able to hold up to to the Middle Eastern guys. MAS can only rely on it's own feeder network (which has shrunk considerably) and KLM. Singapore Airlines' footprint in Europe is nowhere near that of the ME Big 3. But it still has a sizeable network there. And on any given flight between Singapore to Australia / NZ, you easily have 5 to 6 codeshare partners on top of the SQ number. Coupled with Silkair, it's regional footprint for feeder services is vastly superior to the other South East Asian carriers. The Singapore - Australia / NZ vv O&D market is bigger and higher yielding than the Malaysian market. And to top it off, a very very strong brand and reputation in Australia and New Zealand. MAS and the rest have merely been taking the scrapes from this market for a number of years now. It's akin to SQ taking all the meat and leaving MH, TG and the rest to take the leftovers.

Singapore Airlines must have done their homework and concluded that there was a business case for converting those non-stop A345 flights from 2-class Biz/Prem Economy to an all Biz class service. Turned out to be a disastrous decision when the financial crisis hit soon after. With only 5 airframes, unit costs were always going to be high. The A330s that came later would have mitigated some of these costs in terms of better crew utilization (mixed fleet flying, common type rating, simulators, etc) but by then, the market economics did not justify the A345 any longer. If anything, it was good marketing for the Singapore Airlines brand. But ultimately, as one can imagine, a very expensive one. I always felt that Singapore Airlines should have bought the B777-200LR many years back to replace the A345s. They must have had their reasons for not doing so. The comments from the CEO seem to suggest that there are no suitable offerings from Boeing or Airbus at this stage. I always thought that the B777-8X would be more than capable of plying non-stop Singapore-US flights profitably. Would be interesting to know what does SIA deem as "profitable".

That's just sad to watch. Still a great looking livery on a timeless looking aircraft. Come what may of the new company, please keep the Wau. That's a superb gesture from Fraport. It's a mistake to leave and may MAS be back in Frankfurt before too long. MAS, you've got to stay in Europe. It CAN work.