geoff.leo

As some said here, there are many sides to the story. This situation could have been prevented though. If you're dealing with a couple of frustrated passengers, a couple of ground staff is adequate. Here, you have dozens of them. And, with all due respect and with no intention whatsoever to cause offense to anyone, dealing with passengers from the subcontinent can be tricky enough in normal situations, let alone in an exigency like this. More ground staff and someone with a higher authority should have been there to manage the situation. They may not be able fulfill their demands, but "people management" would have helped. In my opinion, this was certainly a result of one overwhelmed ground staff. Those guys shouldn't have been there to fend for themselves alone. What's more, this happened at KLIA, where help should have been readily available. Delays and missed connections happen. It's part and parcel of the airline business. But it's the response that counts. Ultimately, the ground staff's behavior cannot be justified. He was wrong and will have to face the consequences. But MAS should slap themselves even harder for failing to see this situation escalate to that level. Organizational wrongdoing led to individual wrongdoing.

Putting a destination like Frankfurt into the same basket of destinations like Buenos Aires isn't fair. It's one of the world's major air hubs. Germany is one of Malaysia's most important trading partners. It's also a decent source of business travellers and tourists into Malaysia. And while Frankfurt isn't its largest city, it is Germany's most important one. Hugely affluent too. It's position in the middle of Germany means it remains an ideal catchment area for feeder traffic from Germany's most important and populous regions. Granted, MAS doesn't have the advantage of being in Star Alliance. Airlines like Thai and SIA will always be more competitive there. But that can't and shouldn't be the main factor for not making it work. If that was the case, you might as well cull most of MAS's existing network altogether. Lame excuse. There comes a certain point whereby one needs to stop blaming yield as the source of the problem. Rather, as in this case, did the airline do itself any favour? The reasons for the failure of this route isn't down to a lack of demand. KK Lee's outlining of the factors is spot on. And as for the comparison with Qantas. That also misses the mark on several fronts. KUL may not be blessed with the geographical advantage of the Middle Eastern Big 3 hubs. But it isn't perched in a remote part of the world like Sydney or Melbourne either. MAS still has large parts of Southeast Asia and ANZ for it's feeder traffic. It also doesn't suffer from a fragmented and very spread out hub system that Qantas has to contend with (think the big 5 Australian cities that Qantas has to try to serve over 3 times zones) for feeding traffic onto it's European flights. Qantas also suffers from extremely high Australian labour costs. Rubbish airport at Sydney. Slot constraints. Curfews. The list goes on. In a nutshell, one can't use Qantas' situation wholly to justify MAS' shortfalls in Europe.

This story should die a quiet death, and rightly so. Kulim is within reasonable travelling time to Penang International Airport for business travellers. Travel time should also be shorter these days with the opening of the second Penang bridge. There is no justification for Kulim, with its very small local traffic, to have an airport of its own. Just another case of overly ambitious politicians making noise. If money is to be well spent, then it is Penang International Airport that needs a major redevelopment badly. As for Kedah, there is always plenty of room to upgrade sleepy Alor Setar airport if the state government is serious about providing more options for air travellers into the state. Assuming they were serious to begin with. By the same token, the Malacca state government seem to forget that the world's 20th busiest airport sit at their doorstep. If there is any airport that deserves attention, it's Ipoh Airport. The Kinta Valley region has a sizeable catchment area (sub 1 million or so), but suffer from being neither nor there. In an age of low cost air travel, Ipoh does offer some potential. The upcoming services from Tigerair is a good start.

Funny how just as a German is taking over the helms, MAS is exiting Germany. MAS, it's cost cutting you need to do, not revenue cutting. Silly move. An example of utter incompetency in making an important route work.

The warning bells for this scenario were always there. MAB just didn't listen. They will be in a predicament for years to come. MAB will want to increase charges for klia2, but AirAsia will be quick to remind them that they didn't ask for such a facility, and hence shouldn't be expected to pay the "price" now. The difference in charges between KLIA and klia2 isn't justifiable if you were an airline operating out of KLIA, especially anchor tenant Malaysia Airlines. klia2 has been built and is here to stay, so there isn't any point in discussing the what-ifs and could-haves. The government needs to spend more to upgrade KLIA. For an airport that opened just before the turn of the century, it looks like a tired old lady. Compare this with say, Changi's Terminal 1, which was designed in the 70's.

For an airline like MAS, a mix of A350-900s and B777-9Xs would be ideal. The A359s in a 2-class configuration would be an ideal replacement for both the B772s and A333s. Throw in a dozen or so B777-9X for higher capacity routes with a 3-class configuration. Cheaper to operate than an A388 or B748 with a lower break-even load factor. Unfortunately, there's a big elephant in the room. 6 of them to be precise. MAS needs to get rid of them. If they choose to retain the A388s, they'll carry on one of the major problems they're having right now. There is too big of a gap in capacity between an A333/B772 and an A388. MAS doesn't have a product in the 3-class sub-300 market. As a general rule, airlines that have bought the A388 have a substantial fleet of B77W/A346/B744 to bridge this gap with their A333/B772/B788/B789/A359 fleets. These airlines do so only because they have the economics of scale. MAS in my opinion, doesn't have the scale to take that strategy and should instead focus on the 2-class sub-250 market and 3-class sub-300 market. It will be better off following the likes of Cathay, JAL and ANA for their wide-body fleet. Forget about 400-plus 3-class market. Sell off those A380s today.

Even if AirAsiaX indeed isn't making money at the moment, it's long-term prospects remain bright. Scoot/Tigerair/NokScoot, Lion Air and Cebu Pacific would very much prefer to be in AAX's position. Any day. However, it's important that they continue to take advantage of their first-mover position (TAAX and IAAX are good moves), their strong existing brand name and a massive feeder network from the AirAsia family. Scoot should be closely watched with a wave of new B787s and as ever, Lion Air. However, at least in the short to medium term, it's hard to see any of these guys catching up with AAX.

I think it's wise that MAS doesn't reduce it's footprint in Australia. The long-term prospects are generally good. A lot of effort has been made in the last couple of years to increase MAS' market share in Australia. Cutting back now would undo all the hard work. And it would be even more difficult and costly for MAS to regain it's market share in future if it decides to cut back now, especially at slot-restricted Sydney and Melbourne. The same goes for the rest of MAS' network too. It's medium and long-haul operations are already thin. You do not want to give up existing slots at LHR, AMS, CDG and FRA. Not for any price. Those slots are worth another bailout in terms of value if MAS wants them back years from now. While the 2 tragedies have dented MAS' image, it's important to look at the big picture and long-term gains. They've got to get things right fast. Get rid of non-core entities like ground handling. They can follow SIA's strategy years ago in what they did with SATS. In engineering and MRO, again SIA provides a good template with what they've done with SIAEC. MAS' engineering assets in Subang - and Subang airport itself - is every MRO company's dream with it's ample land and long runway. But the business model must be right. MAS' engineering unit must be decoupled from the airline. MAS should remain as the parent company or majority shareholder. In cargo, they've got to consolidate their fleet. Perhaps it would be wise to even sell off their freighters completely and not maintain any fixed assets. A leasing program for freighters might be more cost effective in the cargo market. Trim headcount, where necessary, at all levels. Fleet renewal shouldn't take a back seat because of all the restructuring. If anything, it should be at the core of it. Here, MAS has to decide if it sees the A380 as part of it's future plans. Very few airlines actually make money out of it. The ones that do are able to do so because either they have the economics of scale and volume (Emirates) or the yields are high (British Airways, especially with its transatlantic routes). It's hard to see how MAS can achieve break even on the A380 consistently. Perhaps it would be a good idea to cut their losses and get rid of the A380s. A mix of B777-9Xs and A350-900s might suit an airline like MAS better. They must also start buying either the MAX or NEO for their narrow-body operations.

I think the AirAsia group has done extremely well if you put things into perspective. In Malaysia, they've had to contend with 2 competitors hell bent on filling up seats without giving jack about profits. In Thailand, they've had to contend with the endless political crisis. Thai and NokAir would love to have AirAsia Thailand's results. In Indonesia, the overcapacity and rupiah factor is an industry-wide problem. They've done the right thing not to go into an insane domestic battle with Lionair and Garuda - just ask Tigerair Mandala, Sriwijaya, Batavia, etc. They've built themselves a nice niche in Indonesia's international market. They may have swung into an operational loss, but it's miniscule compared to the problems now facing Garuda. And no one really knows Lionair's shady financials. AirAsia X may be losing money. But at least they are manageable. And they add significantly to the bottomline of the overall AirAsia group. The long-term outlook for them remains very promising. Problems remain in the Philippines. India and Japan will remain challenging. But this is a region where even the best run airline (Singapore Airlines) is barely breaking even at 1-2% operating margin. How is a double digit operating margin bad?

Idris Jala would be a bad choice. He never really got down to fixing MAS' problems. His branding strategy for MAS was flawed and confusing. Five Star Value Carrier was one big absolute rubbish. He did produce a few quarters of "impressive" results, but that was all down to financial massaging masking stubbornly high operational losses. I don't think the government's strategy of assigning their stable of GLC CEOs on a musical chair basis will work for MAS, whether its Jamal, Idris, Wahid, etc. MAS isn't Maybank, Axiata, Telekom, Tenaga, etc. It's a whole different animal. Maybe they should consider the Firefly CEO. He's a MAS guy and knows MAS' problems and culture. Yet he's also proven himself at Firefly, MAS' few little bright spots. No doubt it's one hell of a jump. But an idea worth considering in my view.

Garuda has done many things right over the past few years. Unfortunately, their long-haul widebody strategy isn't one of them. Overly ambitious in my opinion. Garuda is better off concentrating on Asia Pacific and the Middle East, where its A330s and B737s work very well. They don't need the B77W. They certainly can't justify it. They must realize that like it or not, Jakarta's location makes it difficult for long-haul nonstop services to Europe to be profitable and sustainable. Jakarta will never be a transit hub for Southeast Asia. Indonesia's size means that large parts of the country - certainly it's key cities and even Jakarta itself, is better served by the likes of Singapore, KL and Bangkok when it comes to international connections. The right thing to do will be to utilize Etihad via Abu Dhabi in the same way Qantas does it with Emirates via Dubai. Sometimes it's better to contain your ambition and pick the right battles to fight.

If there is a silver lining for brand Malaysia Airlines, this region is full of airlines that have bounced back from major air disasters and are still around today. Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, Silk Air, China Airlines, etc. Just to name a few. It will be long and painful, even more so in MAS' case having to deal with back-to-back one-of-a-kind disasters. But it can be done. After all, in this day and age, what's the point of creating a new brand when everyone knows it's the same sheep with different skin.

Countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and Central Asia (the Tan countries) are all heavily used by everyone. There are special ADIZ procedures for these countries and they have to be adhered to. But otherwise, all airlines use them.

Quite frankly, I can't see how much more MAS' network can be trimmed any further. It's existing European network serving Europe's 4 most important hubs is the bare minimum a full-service carrier should have if it's to maintain any meaningful presence. MAS must stay in Europe. Even if it's not making money, pulling out is actually the easy way out. One only has to look at airlines that gave up Europe for aeons and who are now re-entering it. Garuda and PAL have discovered how difficult it is to regain traffic rights at these hubs and to rebuild their branding. The pain will come back and bite MAS even harder years from now if it exits Europe now. Also, there is no reason why stations like AKL and NRT shouldn't be making money, as these places are still underserved from KUL as compared to other Southeast Asian hubs. The existing routes shouldn't be MAS' problem. Many other things are. The government has to get this right once and for all. This patient is suffering from internal bleeding. Stop handing out plasters.

To blame MAS for MH17 using Ukrainian airspace is quite off the mark. Here's an analogy. Someone is driving from KL to Penang on the North-South Expressway. There have been reports in recent weeks of a fight between 2 clans in Kampung X, somewhere in Perak. Kampung X is about 10km from the nearest perimeter fence of the North-South Expressway. Police report that one clan was known to be in possession of pistols, and that there have been damages to properties and vehicles. Motorists on the North-South Expressway however have no reason to be concerned as it's a local issue. Moreover, the village is separated by a thick rubber plantation from the North-South Expressway. Fighting has only been observed within the confines of the village. The village is declared a danger zone and outsiders are barred. Police have yet to contain the local fighting. However, police have beefed up security in the vicinity and have managed to cordon the village. Police caution the travelling public of the danger zone but declare the expressway safe after making a thorough risk assessment. Thousands of motorists continue to use it. One fine day, fighting extends beyond the boundaries of the village, deep into the plantation and close to the perimeter of the expressway. Unbeknown to the local police, one clan had secretly gotten possession of an automatic machine rifle. In an ensuing fight, the clan with the automatic machine gun hunts down a pickup truck from the rival clan deep into the rubber plantation, coming dangerously close to the perimeter of the expressway. In the heat of a chase, the chasing clan opens fire at the fleeing pickup truck of the rival clan. However, the untrained gunman, used to only handling small pistols, struggles to control his automatic rifle, firing aimlessly at 200 rounds per minute. Some rounds hit an express bus carrying 40 passengers on the North-South Expressway. The bus was unlucky enough to be hit in it's fuel tanks and engine. Several tyres were also blown off. The bus spins and flips uncontrollably many times over and comes to a rest in a ditch, but not before catching fire and bursting into flames. All on board perish. Initial reports suggest that the police underestimated the potential dangers. But reports also suggest the bus operator and driver should have taken an alternative trunk road on the other side of the expressway, which would have brought them even further away from the village. This alternative route would only have cost the operator an additional 20 minutes of travelling time. Although the police were confident that the expressway was safe for use, the bus operator shouldn't have taken chances. They should have anticipated that there was a chance of heavy automatic machine rifles being used and that fighting would expand way beyond the confines of the cordoned village. People are questioning the safety standards of the bus operator. The signs were there. They should have seen it coming. Seriously?

This is a potential double-edged sword in the making. May turn into a PR nightmare. There will be those that view it in a negative way. I see no damage done in not doing it. Hence, IMO, it shouldn't be done.

As with most topics, there is a clear divide in viewpoint between those in aviation and those who aren't. Perhaps sometimes we have to remind ourselves to take a step back and try to appreciate the viewpoint from the other side. For those in aviation, It would be good to keep in mind that the layman doesn't possess the unique school of thought and knowledge that can only be attained if one is in aviation. For those who aren't, aviation ingrains one to have zero tolerance for half-baked conclusions without any facts or knowledge. Hence the occasional cold reception when a particular remark sounds "expertly" definitive but riddled with ifs and maybes. Even if it's just for discussion's sake. But this divide is also what keep forums alive. Long shall this continue :-)

If he's serious about it, then the smart thing to do would be to develop under-utilised Alor Setar airport. It doesn't suffer from the constraints at Bayan Lepas and is well-connected enough by highways. So this is nothing more than him trying to get the occasional quick political publicity, whatever the reason may be. And to side track a bit, Bayan Lepas Airport and Subang Airport are very good reminders of poor planning and foresight with regards to Malaysia's major airports.

Some of his views are relevant: unprofitable routes, poor choice of aircraft purchase, flawed business strategies, questionable contracts, etc. Having said that, anyone with a decent amount of knowledge on the aviation industry would already know that about MAS. But with all due respect, many of his views are from an old school textbook. He thinks that MAS should be defended at all costs. He still thinks that a "national carrier" in the form of yesteryears is still the way to go. There is a strong hint in the interview that AirAsia is the source of MAS' problems. Rather baffling is also the thought that MAS should have kept it's non-core real estates; someone forgot to tell him that this was an industry wide practice and most major airlines have sold off their premium city centre real estates. He also thinks that MAS should have a dual brand strategy to compete in the low-cost segment; history (e.g. BA flopping with Go!) and current trends (e.g. SQ struggling with Tigerair and Scoot) tells you it doesn't work. The government needs a team of the likes of Tim Clarks, Tony Fernandeses and Willie Walshes to advise them.

While the powers that be figure out the best course of action, MAS can't afford to put its fleet renewal exercise on hold. If anything, it should be very much be at the core of this restructuring exercise. This has been mentioned before, but here goes again. The right fit for MAS would be the B737NG/MAX for the narrow body fleet and A350s for the wide body fleet. MAS needs to do it's sums with regards to the A380. At just 6 pieces, it's difficult to achieve the scale that would bring it's unit costs down. But to order more would represent a significant gamble. Even SQ is showing signs of struggling to fill up her A380s. London continues to see some service reductions and/or downgrades to the 777. A380 introductions to India, China and New Zealand will come at the expense of cancellation of frequencies resulting in net seat capacity reductions to these markets. Hong Kong will also see one of two daily A380 services cut. Horrible yields in Australia have resulted in a complete exit out of Melbourne for the A380s. Sydney now sees only one daily A380 service. MAS should strongly consider doing away with First Class service. This would negate the need for A380s. A fleet of just two types would bring huge operational savings and improvements in fleet efficiency. First Class service doesn't generate much yield these days for Southeast Asian carriers, especially for a relatively low-yield market such as Malaysia. Airlines continue to do it out of legacy reasons and as a product differentiator for their branding. In the case of MAS, with only 2 destinations getting First Class service, perhaps the time is right to consider doing away with it altogether and concentrate on where the bulk of the money is. Granted, some prestige - ego for some - may be lost. But hardly important when one considers the greater gains. So selling off the A380s might be a wise idea. And for that matter, even the B777X wouldn't be viable for MAS.

Rather surprising and bold move. Some A350s would have been a good replacement for their existing A330s and A340s to serve thinner routes or develop new markets. Basically it reinforces Emirates' existing formula: A route must be able to sustain at least one daily B77W operation or Emirates won't bother flying there at all.

AirAsia's grouses are valid. But I'm not convinced that RM3 is. Understandable but still an outright shove down the throat to everyone. How opportune, at a time when their yields have taken a dive. You've gotta love Tony if you're an investor or shareholder. For the time being, criticisms of klia2 will be subdued. MAHB has finally got it up and running and by the standards of major airport expansions, things have run relatively smooth. But eventually, someone has to pay for this not-exactly-low-cost facility. Airlines and IATA are already questioning the passenger service charges for klia2 and rightly so. The facilities at KLIA aren't exactly twice better than that of klia2. Some regional airlines operating at KLIA will see this as unfair competition. MAHB will realize that eventually, this low passenger service charge for klia2 is unsustainable. AirAsia on the other hand, will not accept any increase. They will just remind MAHB and the government 'I told you so' that klia2's design was flawed for a sustainable low-cost operation. It won't be long before MAHB and the government start finding themselves in a situation on how to recoup their investments without increasing the passenger service charges. MAHB has said a lot about gearing it's business model towards more ancillary income. MAHB, you better. On the operational side, the location of klia2 with respect to Runways 33/15 and 32L/14R means a very long taxi time for departures during months with a northerly wind. This adds significantly to costs, both time and money. The DCA has also done an extremely poor job in redrawing the departure and arrival procedures. Eastbound SIDs for Runway 33/15 involve a lot more track miles. The STARs for WMKK/KUL were always unnecessarily complicated with too many transitions. They just got more complicated. In an age when there are serious issues regarding climate change, carbon footprint and permanently high oil prices, these flaws are unacceptable. What's more, WMKK/KUL doesn't suffer from land scarcity, terrain, highly populated surroundings, noise restrictions, proximity to a neighbouring airspace, military airspace, etc. In many countries, these and many other factors place lots of restrictions on air traffic management. What the DCA has done for WMKK/KUL is totally incomprehensible. The opening of klia2 and Runway 33/15 was a good chance for the DCA to simplify the procedures and improve air traffic management. What they've done is complicate it further and made it more inefficient. The UK's CAA and NATS would be shocked to see this. DCA's planners only need 5 minutes in Heathrow to realize what they could have done. You have to feel for the air traffic controllers.

MAS can look to SIA on how to split it's non-core business. While engineering isn't a core business, it is a highly lucrative one. It would make absolute sense to have a separate MRO company with an independent management. MAS can still be a majority shareholder in this unit. They could still reap the benefits from the share of profits. And by it's own association, they will still have some form of in-house engineering support. Having MAS as an 'anchor customer' means that this unit would already have a solid base to build on. By being independent, more focus can be spent on tapping the market for more third party MRO work. While MAS is already doing some of that, it's not living up to it's full potential. With the right team and with adequate government support, the potential benefit to Malaysia's aerospace industry is big. Just look what SIAEC and ST can do with their cramped facilities at busy Changi Airport. And then there's land-scarce Seletar with only a 1.8km runway but being a regional MRO and aerospace hub. So just imagine the potential of Subang Airport. Whatever path MAS takes for this so-called reboot, it mustn't go back to the dark days of Tajudin Ramli. Declaring it bankrupt and starting on a clean sheet of paper (if there's such a thing as a clean sheet of paper) is probably the best and most obvious solution, even if it's politically unpalatable. Any other stop-gap measures will only prolong this dire situation, which can't go on indefinitely. Even well-run airlines like SIA are barely in the black, and this situation will stay for the foreseeable future. The days of double-digit operating profit margins for well-run airlines such as SIA and Cathay won't come back anytime soon, if ever. Running on 2-3% margin has become the new norm for these airlines. What more for a troubled airline like MAS. To people who bark about the so-called glory years, the cold hard truth is there was never one for MAS. Back in the days when the airline industry was highly nationalized and controlled, it was easy for airlines to make money. Underlying problems, huge inefficiencies, incompetent management and cronyism were easily masked. The post of CEO in MAS is the most thankless job of any major company in Malaysia at this point in time.

There may be lots of problems yet to be uncovered when operations commence at KLIA2. Maybe days, or weeks even. But overall, it's a massively positive development for the aviation industry in Malaysia, and for KLIA in particular. AirAsia can only go stronger from here. For Tigerair and Scoot, I think things just got tougher for their already tough situation. The same goes for Qantas/Jetstar too. Just see how Jetstar's growth has remained flat and the how rapidly Qantas has reduced it's operations at Changi, with more to come. And Changi's new budget terminal T4 will not match KLIA2. At the rate things are going, the already big gulf between the AirAsia Group and the Singapore-based budget carriers will only get bigger. And while Cebu Pacific and Lion Air grapple with infrastructure constraints at Manila and Jakarta, KLIA2's opening further solidifies the AirAsia Group's position against these other Southeast Asian giants. I think it shouldn't have been called KLIA2 though. It's confusing for those not in aviation and the travelling public. It's still one airport - WMKK/KUL. Rather than call it KLIA2, MAHB and the government should have used this opportunity to come up with a Concourse or Terminal numbering system, for example, Terminal/Concourse 1 for the existing MTB and Satellite buildings, and Terminal/Concourse 2 for this new facility. I also hope plans are in the pipeline to have a full parallel taxiway to the west of the existing Runway 32L/14R to fully utilise KUL's runway capacity. Moving forward, the existing Main Terminal Building is in need of a renovation. MAHB should consider expanding the departure/arrival pick-up and check-in concourse. The time may be also be ripe for a second satellite building.

It's a very easy conclusion to make. Because the Malaysian government doesn't have a culture of transparency and is plagued by so much incompetency at so many levels in everyday life, the natural thing to do would be to use those factors to justify the easy conclusions that one would make in a case which quite genuinely has had very little concrete leads. But lets consider this. I really do not think the Malaysians would have gotten this amount of support from so many countries if they weren't forthcoming in sharing the information they had. The Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Koreans, Indians and British would not have provided this amount of help if the Malaysians tried to be funny. And of course there were many other countries involved too in the initial weeks. These guys have contributed some of their most expensive and sophisticated equipment, both military and civilian. To a certain degree, this has also come at the expense of their own national security. Granted, there may be strategic motives for showing this level of support. There is also a collective need among the international community, not least of all those in aviation and national security, in wanting to get to the bottom of this mystery. But this operation will cost their respective taxpayers hundreds of millions when all is done and dusted. Invoices will probably be sent to Malaysia eventually, but lets just say it's not the most profitable business in the world. There is a natural sense of moral obligation of course, but just that alone won't be enough for the astounding level of commitment we've seen for the past 5-6 weeks. So at the end of the day, the level of help will only commensurate with the level of cooperation given by the one seeking help. You want help? Sure thing buddy. Anytime. But first, show me what you've got. Then we'll play ball.