Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal

Ruiz Razy

Silver Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ruiz Razy

  1. I susspect KCH and BKI may be a challenge to keep them profitable as the Yield and Fare to and from these two cities are much lower than the ones in the peninsular Malaysia. (In the past, the % fare increases to the East Malaysia has always been lower than west Malaysia). As an example, fare for KUL - LGK is almost the same as KUL - KCH although KUL - KCH is longer. What more with those special fares to east Malaysia. (i.e. they have the YEE fare for East Malaysia but not within West Malaysia and not forgetting the above seat/mile - yield considerations). The above could have been the logical reasons why MH would like to have the freedom to determine the fare.
  2. I strongly believe all existing routes could be maintained (including EZE) if only the dedication to strive and shared interest is felt among the staff, supporting agents (incld. GSA's) and management. FYI, Just heard that the EZE load is good (including CPT - EZE) After all, it's nearest competitor could only be via AKL or SYD on QF and Aerolineas Argentinas. ... And no competition at all to CPT and JHN. Sounds strange that they could capitalise on that advantage and yet no profit.....something wrong somewhere. I'm sure SQ would start if MH withdraws.... and no more "Across 6 continents for MH".
  3. I'm sure all of us agree on the urgency of an alliance for MH. But let's face an important truth. ......... look at Proton and VW. That is sort of scenario that will make the deal less interesting......without explaining further the politics of it. p/s although VW has successfully turn around the fortunes of SKODA.
  4. I dont think that it is fair and right to get the main operating carriers to get into such mess / request. (GA and MH). I would imagine it's the 5th freedom 3rd carriers that should be limited i.e. EK,QR,KL.....etc. Look at say LHR - CDG, SYD - MEL, LHR - JFK or LHR - AMS. Other third carriers may operate but with limited / no rights at all. That's how LHR - JFK would not be given out to other carriers easily. Exceptions may be allowed for carriers that "offer below the main carriers sevices". This is one of the reasons why we will never see MH/SQ/EK operating such route but BG/AI/KU maybe. After all, I thought KUL - CGK is a codeshare GA/MH. Otherwise... improve further by doing a shuttle arrangements like KUL - SIN.
  5. Do hope to see them regularly @ KUL / PEN (i.e. a few times a day) and maybe occassionally ( 2-3 times a week) @ KCH, LGK and BKI in QF colours.
  6. sorry "proud malaysians" not pround!
  7. What I don't understand is why Air Asia - senior management run by all Malaysians - and they did make money MH during late 70's, 80's and early 90's were also run by Malaysians - and MH did make money 90% of the time. Y do we need mat sallehs? they will cost more.... betultak? Remembered ( even in the Malay Papers recently) the previous Tan Sri Aziz was very sentimental and at the end of the day he did a good job. Managed to balance the government - social needs with commercial needs. And his management team then were all pround Malaysians. Azahan u r right. may we should run it. This is not about politics or nationalism. But Malaysians Boleh!
  8. If it is true, he should leave or not, be sued! My "condolences" and wishing all the best for all MH staff. As a frequent traveller and a Malaysian, I'm sad and I hope it will one day it will fly high again. I'm always a strong supporter of MH. But if such things do happen and goes on, than there is no point for me to choose MH.
  9. I don't think that this is a wise move. They should get them replaced , maybe at smaller numbers. It is not logical to see the full service airline with old planes and the low cost competitor with brand new airbuses. After all, if cost is the issue, fuel efficient aircraft is better than those fuel thirsty planes. It may not neccessarily be narrow body, wide body jets such as 787 or A350 could be an attractive alternative. at the end of the day, full service airlines should be better than low cost. i.e. newer planes, wider legroom, better inflight service....etc. Otherwise, they are not a true full service airline. Aircraft manufacturers could assist in purchasing / leasing the aircraft. As what has happenend with Airbus giving Eastern free leases the A300 in the late 1970s/ early 1980s.
  10. "The abovesaid" people are here 'coz. they really need jobs and rather limited to where they can go (US and most western countries totally out). Whereas the ones that are leaving, I would imagine are the ones that are frustrated with MH although deep inside they maybe "do care" as it is their national pride and joy.
  11. ......It is sad, but I'm not supprise! This is what happens when politics and practically everybody wants to be involved and claimed that they know more and what's best for the National Airline.... when in actual fact that they do not know. .... typical human arrangonce and disrespect for the nation. It will fly high again only if the ones with the right qualifications and experiences are involved and those that do not know airline businesses should just shut up.
  12. ..... and PW4056 is a flight number.
  13. Y NOT? It may be business premium, but it is ahead of regional competitiors and maybe "double bedrooms with ensuite toilet facilities" for First Class, and called them as Platinum First ( sounds a level higher than other first class) ...... to be introduced only on the A380. ......... then, MH will truly be a 6 star airline ( Just like Burj Al Arab compared to other hotels).
  14. By design, the 332 and 333 are currently beautiful and sleek type of aircraft. Personnally, I really liked the 332, although I've not travelled on MH, but my experience on EK's 332 was really good. What makes MH 333s less attractive is that they do not have PTVs, no new GCC seats. But what makes me really sad at this particular type of MH aircraft is the title "MALAYSIA" and the flag on the (MH 332 and 333 ) livery , I think its a bit "too" forward and this has spoilt the general "composition scheme" and standard with other type of MH fleets. i.e. they are in between door 1 and 2; unlike 772, D10, AB3, M11 - which are / were in between door 2 and 3 of the aircraft, just before the wing not imediately after door 1. Anyway, back to the topic ........ the 787 looks much more attractive (in design and comfort) than the A350 at this moment.
  15. Agreed, Paper menus do have a touch a class, But, if they need to let it go, menus on PTVs is okay in my opinion. so long as it is not out totally.
  16. Menus are important as one would know what kind of food and drinks available and offered. Why not integrate them interactively within the PTV - AVOD .....or whatever PTV system available. Would not cost much and ..... the airline can change the menu more regularly ( and even let the cabin crew to update during flight, once any food / drinks is out of stock or finished), no need to worry over extra weight and pax. keeping them for "momentos". ..... to expand further.... Temptations (inflight duty free) brouchers / catalogue can be done on a similar arrangement. but not safety cards and inflight magazines. I'm sure if such move is taken, MH would truly be a very innovative 5 star airline.
  17. One idea, 1 PMB be the domestic operator 2 Have franchise arrangement with MH 3 Existing domestic MH staff - VSS or transferred out or sacked 4 PMB recruit new domestic staff, with lower cost - i.e. on contract basis 5 Let PMB decide on schedules, aft. types ...etc. 6A PMB must go for smaller aft. like CRJs / Emb with high frequency for conectivity instead of 32x or 737NG. Another advantage - quicker turnaround. 6B MH may choose to operate and maintain high density and demand routes themselves like KCH / BKI and PEN ( maybe JHB and KBR if there is sufficent demand). But it must be on wide - bodied jets like 787 / 332; as cost / km is lower compared to 32x 0r 737NG; Provided that the load factor is more than 80% particularly at the front end. 7 Be focussed for Business travellers, (leisure and cost minded pax. to be channel to AK); Therefore increase premium seats. i.e. Club class. 8 Keep staff - aft. ratio low and out source maintainance / catering ......everthing. 9 Keep the premium pax. happy - i.e. lounges at all stations and allow Enrich miles accurals. 10 In flight meal for C class - keep it simple and yet good. One fine example, coffee / tea in mugs instead of cups, Cold snacks ( not just sandwiches) , pre - hot snacks only at longer flights served on tray 11 EY snacks can be distributed at boarding gates, maybe a packed juice with muffins or similar - something like what one get on LHR - AMS on BA. ..... I'm sure this is something that the government wants as there will be an increased role for AK in the domestic arena. But, to let go everthing for MH particularly to major towns like AOR / TGG / KBR / KUA will be a loss as the premium demand for business travellers is still out there........ After all to have a choice between 2 products is much better than just one. ... unless KTM introduces the high speed 400km / hour trains to these places.
  18. ........ some cost may be in MYR; But major cost are still in USD! 1 Jet Fuel 2 Aft. Finance / leasing Charges 3 Aft. / Pax. Insurance
  19. Load factor does not mean profit....... the revenue / cost per km counts; i.e. YIELD, MH domestic services has a very low YIELD and cost is high. Amongst the key reasons are: 1 Fare - unrealistic - controlled by the government. Especially premium C - class fares , short flights like KUL - AOR / TGG / KBR and Sabah / Sarawak are much lower than EY (in some cases LCC) flights of the same distance in Europe / US. 2 They have "senior"/ elderly staff to take care at these stations, unlike AK, New staff , pay can be slightly lower. - Automated / self check in facilities may be a solution. 3 Night stops at almost all major towns ( perhaps for connectivity reasons) additional cost for crew. - Late / Early - Departures / Arrivals may need to be reintroduced (e.g. 0545 Dep. KUL - KBR and 2330 KBR - KUL in the 1980s) Politically and socially are good national service for MALAYSIA but commercially it does not sound viable.
  20. "subsidiary" , I think is now the old method of "getting rid of wanted but unwanted stuff"; This may no longer work. However, "franchise" could be a better option. Just like Maersk Air of BHX, ( became a BA franchise partner by late 1990s) maintains the quality and standards of BA ( with full BA uniforms / livery and identity) but the holding company is a different group entirely. In this case, the benefits are 1 Feeder services (i.e. Intl. to Domestic) is maintained 2 Cost is low as it is a small company 3 Intl. quality and standards maintained. 4 Considered as one form of alliance. 5 Staff and Overhead Costs can be reduced as these franchises staff are specifically employed for this small company. 6 As it is small, every little effort will be done to ensure that it will remain profitable .... i.e. routes will be cut if it does not give any returns. BUT....when the local Malaysian scenario and politics being added in this case, I'm not sure .... that it will work...... In this context, it is for PMB and our Government to think about.
  21. Agreed with the KUL - MAA. Something like what has happened on KUL - BKK, LHR/LGW - JFK. These are classic example of more flights / open sky - affects the YIELD. But controlled, demanding and restricted routes, e.g. KUL - JED or KUL - SIN are more likely profitable. Although MH is the sole carrier on the Kangaroo KUL - LHR, KUL - SYD/MEL/ADL/PER/....etc., Great competition still happens via BKK/SIN and to a certain extent HKG and DXB.
  22. KUL - SIN, may be attractive and very profitable for MH - SQ. ........because 1 Profits shared 50 - 50; no competition. 2 Traffic Rights by other carriers - fully controlled (That's why no AK) 3 Fare - extremely high - comparable to full service flights within EUR and US - but cost / km much lower ( as crew, and catering / service rates lower) therefore high YIELD 4 High Demand for Premium Passengers / high business traffic 5 No demand, flights can easily be cancelled and transfered to another, high demand , aircraft can easily be upgraded or even added within 24 hours ( time utilisation / sector on this route is low) 6 Unsold EY seats can easily be filled - especially during peak periods - Shuttle tickets. But...... things will soon change.....
  23. If they need something different and as domestic flights may be reduced; As a local - regional frequent business traveller , I would prefer that they would opt for 787s in the long run. After all, I'm sure the cost/km is better (higher YIELD), more comfortable - wide body particularly for key domestic routes such as BKI, KCH, PEN and later perhaps LGK, JHB, KBR and TGG.....etc. as well. At least twice daily - for business meeting purposes. The narrow bodied should be minimal order, only for extremly low demand routes like regional MES,PADANG, CEB and AOR, KUA, and off peak JHB, LGK, KBR...etc. Personally, For narrow body category, I prefer the airbuses (321/320/319/318). Because: - 1 Quicker turn around - cargo / luggage in Pallets 2 Wider cabin - wider aisle and wider seats 3 Newer design ; Airbuses (from late 1980s) compared to 737s (late 1960s) But for the B787 - A350 category, the boeing is better, fresh and new design. The A350 is something like an improvement from A330.
  24. More Frequencies does not necessarily mean better. Otherwise there will be .... over capacity and that's when one starts to slash fares. Thus yields affected. However, additional flights must only be added when there's suffiecient demand. Back to basic A-levels Economics. " Supply should never exceed Demand". When there's more demand, and not much supply, that's when one can get good returns. Not sure about DXB, but I think KUL - JED is good as it's just thrice a week and up to say daily or more during peak season such as Ramadhan and Hadj.( excluding Hadj charters) However, key cities should be conveniently served at least twice a day and be more focussed for business travellers. They would normally opt for C or F class. Although MH does that, Efforts should be made to encouraged full paying pax.... and not free government upgrades / staff travel. In the case of LH mentioned previously, their main focussed is Business Class. That's why one will see it occupies almost half of the aircraft on main routes and they didn't bother having PTV's in EY as Economy it's not their core business. Perhaps a daily single C class with full paying pax. on 738 / 320 on SYD - KUL - LHR ( something like Privatair) may give better returns than daily A380 with 4 classes on the same route (with discounted fares). On a lighter note : I remembered having to pay a lot more for KUL - JED (Ramadhan '04) than KUL - LHR ( Summer '05) , although it's bad for individuals, but it's good for airline business.
  25. Guys, Profitable route would normally relate to YIELDS.... In this case full EY does not mean profitable. A Full J/C class and F /P class are much better that EY. LH made hundredrs of millions in Euros coz. their J class is doing very well. FRA / MUC - US WEST Coast is a gold mine for them. I remember reading in Airline Business a few years back the senior chap from LH said.... "to make money in airline industry is to just concentrate on filling Club / Business class with full fare pax. thats it". Back to MH, although LHR and SYD may be full, I would imagine middle east routes such as JED and ocassinally DXB are profitable as they need not have any speacial fares / offers on these routes. Mind you the C and F fares (particularly to JED) is really high, unlike LHR / SYD ... where you can get ocassional triple miles / miles offers and free upgrades.
  • Create New...