Ruiz Razy

That's a brilliant idea!

Don't mean to bash anyone here; Capt Nik, what makes MH special and superior than others ( say SQ / TG or EK) ? And what will attract a person like me that appreciates good service (food, Entertainment, amenities...not just the good crew) and route network ( direct and regular ) as I do have tight shedules but do need to be on regular move regionnally and globally?

If MH staff is not happy, why keep them as it is? The very least is to improve them ( at least to be on par with your 772s) ; Afterall, in business, good profitable and sustainable revenue would come when the employee is happy ( in this case to operate them ) . Or is your managemt does not listen to the employee's problems? I must agree that the A330 , is aesthetically pleasing, but the performance wise does not look that good for long haul ( except the A330-200).

the true Best cabin staff and meal ever experienced ; Therefore the best airline is SR - ( too bad they are no longer with us); MH used to be almost that good in the late 70's and late 90's but not today. Aircraft - DC- 10

MH - Malaysian Hospitality, just like home? Don't think so, Back in my typical malay kampung in Kelantan, Nasi Dagang or Nasi Kerabu would normally be served with the very best dishes / fork and spoon as part of our culture to treat guests and relatives whenever they visited us; similarly during this festive chinese new year for chinese communities with the tempting Yee Sang; And MAS is saying that they are focussed for the best Malaysian Hospitality and yet just serve Sandwich Boxes, less cabin staff, "antique" planes" - this sounds more like the American Hospitality! The only true Malaysian Hospitality here is "cakap banyak" on BTP but slow action. i.e. where are the new planes? and where is the enhanced products? Common MH; u can do much better !

That's an F27, the aircraft was originally delivered to MSA. Then (1984), the F27 was operated to KBR daily on the KUL - IPH - PEN - KBR routing - may be the longest and most hops route within the Peninsular . F50 was only delivered to MH in 1989.

First and foremost - MH and SQ must get those bloody fares down ! It's totally illogical. The Joint Shuttle may stay but please make them more affordable. Two - LCC should be allowed. But with limited rights! Why ? 1 JHB will loose out. Senai would no longer be the so call southern hub. 2 Johore Bahru would loose out . Bad for Malaysian Economy 3 Singapore stand to gain a lot more than Malaysia, as this would further enhance SIN position as an air hub. Considering KUL coverage is insignificant compared to SIN 4 AK may gain but at the expense of Johore economy. As a Malaysian, I feel like that is more like killing a member of your own family!

Overbooked flights with low yield tickets - no point. It's rather silly. Therefore proper sales management and ticket pricing are essential. Unless, if overbooked with good yield tickets ; this justifies for larger aircraft. . If , F/P loads are low, where as C / J / Y / K M /Q tickets are high - than it is time for MH to consider aircraft with high density from the mid cabin to the back. In this case , maybe to refurbished some of the 744 with just Club and Economy may be practical in the interim. This would therefore justifies for 77W / 380 / 789 as long term fleet replacement.

....the move will have an impact on MH , good for budget consumers and this is a way of ensuring MH to be on the toes at all times. So, MH, what's your next move? p/s Don't forget SQ with their new products as well!

MAS should be willing to fly to all destinations suggested but with a condition attached.......i.e. any losses inccured, should be paid by the person / ministry / government that has suggested. Maybe add at least 10% of profit margin as part of profit margin. This will ensure that MAS remains in the black while flying all over the world...........maybe to over 200 destinations..... hahahahaha

Despite what I've said earlier, Positively, It may still work with reinforcing CO / NW joint arrangements. Afterall EWR is CO's hub. This may help the ARN - EWR sector. Whereas ARN - KUL may still work with aggresive promotions and capitalise on beyond KUL, say to Australasia, Indo China; which may be attractive for Europeans / Scandinavians. In fact, Malaysia's Natural Beauty is the main reason why most Europeans would want to see. Trust me, almost all of my European friends said so. Unfortunatly it is not well promoted ( in some cases maintained) . But, it will compete directly with TG's strong pressence in Scandinavia. Especially TG is "close" to SK and THailand's strong Asian Cultural Charm. A good comprimise is may be to have seasonal flights only. As the market now is "Leisure" not Business. But, if it is Business, regular flights is essential.

I think the biggest error was when the KUL - DXB - EWR route was rerouted via ARN instead of DXB. And to add things worse the timing from KUL! And now EK is operating 3 flights daily to JFK! ... with high loads at the front end of the AFT ( premium pax.) MH could still compete as MH flies to EWR. Plus EWR offers greater US / Canadian connections; which could easily be tied with CO. In fact,MH could have operated daily with 772 or maybe 744/74E. 744/74E maybe a better option as 744 will normally be a better option than EK's 345. ARN and other smaller EUR stations like VIE / MAD .....etc. could only work with MH on smaller size aircraft with lower operating costs...... this is where 787 coulod do the job. The flight operations could be seasonal during holidays only, similar to the KUL - BAH -KWU route.

Those props may be used to open up new links between Peninsular and Sabah / Sarawak such as KCH - KUA , BTU - JHB ....ETC. ... and maybe within Peninsular like KUA - IPH / IPH - KBR or the "too big" for A32S / 737 like JHB - IPH / JHB - KBR...etc..

Any posibilities on CDG - KUL for AF?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Didn't AK were the ones that wanted virtually all domestic routes from MH since last year? And didn't the original deal was the so called interlining issues would have been worked together and resolved? Isn't the original intentions were to avoid excess capacity, avoid competition and to ensure our air transport network is well covered for our social needs? Or could it be that AK is affraid of not making money? ... and perhaps being less socially responsible to the nation? From the way it looks, then there is no point of dividing the routes. Let the market conditions determine where AK or MH ones to go! From the way it looks, well let MH get more of the secondary routes .....such as JHB - KCH , MYY - BKI .... etc.

"MH and do make the glorious 'Wau Bulan' flying high in the skies with other airlines!" CORRECTION MH logo is a representation of Wau Kucing and not Wau Bulan. Please do not get confused.

I'm an architect and urban planner. Transport planning is part and parcel of urban planning. The sad part is (for our nation's benefit), an integrated approach to the transport planning is critical for a nation's success has not been well accepted yet in Malaysia. The "non sense" route explained earlier may not be acceptable to some people, as the numbers may not be high enough at this moment. But as our population and GDP grows, there bound to be a demand. 737 / A320 may prove to be too big, but the connectivity is nevertheless is important. After all, our state is going borderless, fences are breaking up. Mind you, one may be working in Malacca, but his wife may be from Perlis and he himself may be from Kelantan is becoming more common these days. Profesionally, one basic rule of thumb for rail operations (regardless ERL, TGV, LRT or Bullet Trains), Rail services is profiatble once the capital cost has been taken out. But the economic benefits is greater than the said capital cost and better than airports at regional context. Don't mean to argue, but we have to look far....... and beyond and Money needs to be spend wisely for the benefit of the rakyat.

JHB , PEN, AOR ( and MKZ, IPH - in smaller context) may still be needed for regional flights. KUL - SIN vv - yes will significantly be reduced. what would then be : - more itra regional within peninsular, sumatra and Asean such as :- IPH / JHB - PLM Palembang IPH - JHB / KUA JHB - KBR JHB - TGG / KUA IPH - MES JHB - MES / CGK MKZ - KBR / TGG / KUA The above may be operated on regional jets such as CRJs / Emberars / F70

In long term transport planning, It is desirable to see high speed rail link to connect from Penang / Alor Setar down south to JB and Singapore ( if they behave) with KL ( main hub), Ipoh, Seremban, Malacca and possibly other towns such as Muar, Kuala Kangsar and Taiping. The basic rationale is to dispurse Klang Valley growth and economic concentration to other parts of the Penninsular. This would mean that one can opt to leave in JB and commute to KL within one hour ( assuming 400+km/h) just like what we see in Japan and France. It may not necessarily be the ERL and the above has been aknowledged by our government. However it shall be in the Long term planning ( too soon within RM9). Another problem is the high capital cost that needs to be considered. This will definately benefit economic growth at other states and relieve the constraints within the Klang Valley in the long run. This would definately have a reverse impact on the local aviation industry. But, our carriers (MH and AK) should, in the long run be prepared for it. Coming back to the topic, such spending may be a waste, and the rail stations should have been given the priority. Unless MKZ airport intends to promote intra regional air services such to KBR, TGG, KUA, PEN, PDG, PLM , MES, CGK... etc.. , which I think the demand may be low. FYI, There is no need to build another bridge accross the Causeway as the Second Link and the exisitng Causeway do have rail reserves. The good news is the Second Link reserves has not been utilised yet.

It can happen as long as Malaysia is one step ahead ( including MH , AK and MAB) particularly in providing comfort and connectivity to KL and around the globe. As an example....... our LCCT is not well connected. The bus does not look good and the only way is to extend the ERL / KLIA Transit

I strongly believe that they can make money provided that good marketing and people in place as the products are there. Mind you having travelled on both carriers (EK and MH) on business and economy classes (without being bias) I must say that MH is far better than EK.

Could do, or go back to the KUL - DXB - EWR on daily basis as demand for DXB - EWR is high particularly for premium pax., despite the uneasy relations between the Arabs and Americans. The high demand can be seen on EK's DXB - JFK's double daily flights. After all, I'm sure MH can compete well as it is "just" EK in that market ( and EK is rated 4 star) and maybe have code share arrangements with CO/NW/DL. I've also heard that the fare from DXB to JFK/EWR is higher than KUL/SIN to JFK/EWR as there has not been enough flights. If it is true, I'm sure it will help MH in terms of YIELDS ( the basic principle to make money). The 3 flights in a week does not look attractive for premium pax. / business travellers. If they want to fly to a destination, a daily flight should be the the minimal amount of flights. What worries me most is that SQ, EK, CX and to certain extent TG are set to gain with MH drastic downsizing.

I hope "split and key routes means just direct services to state capitals from KUL such as JHB, AOR, TGG, KBR, BKI, KCH, PEN and LGK. It that's the case ...it's not that bad. But if MH is totally out from the above, then our aviation industry is really bad and substandard.

Politicians are well known all over the world to make silly remarks for self interest and wanting things their way. Of course it can be done, but they should pay for it! y not make these people pay for the losses incurred and plus say additional 25% for loss of profit potentials should these routes to be kept.

No offence, what I really want 2 say is that the current fare is determine and controlled by the Government and not by market supply and demand. The YEE fares and other special fares is merely to promote demand - basic economics. It is not a matter of number of seats sold or trying to fill the plane full, it is a matter of YIELD. Therefore, there is no point of flying at a loss (even if it is full) rather than flying say 80% load but at a profit. In this case, downsize is a good option but do not sacrifice the conveinence / connectivity for premium and high frequent travellers. As AK has targetted the lower income brackets, (which could have eaten into MH EY market) maybe MH needs to target the upper middle and upper income population. Personally, If I can afford I'll will and still choose MH over AK as I aspect full service and the conveinence / connectivity (Despite the fact that I always prefer the A320s than 737s). FYI, C class on most of my (about 25 round trips in 2005) internal business trips since has always been full (JHB, KBR and occassionally KUA).