Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal

Ruiz Razy

Silver Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    370

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ruiz Razy

  3. Posted · Report reply

    As with most Malaysian GLCs, govt. is never able to be humble and take 49% stake. Any surprise that MH can't work with QF? Same story as Proton and VW. If a company is supposed to transfer technology and know how to you (the beggar), do you expect them to cede control of their technology and know how to you?

     

    They say that beggars can't be choosers. In this case, it would appear that the beggar is actually dictating the terms...

     

    FYI, back when MH was born in 1972; it was QF that provided the assistance to MH. It worked really well in setting the right foot and ground for MH. Of course back then the "Commonwealth" collaboration was stronger thn ASEAN.

     

    IMHO, Transfer of Technology is becoming somehow embedded within the era of globalisation in todays world and to talk so much of pride in politics and nation these days may compromise one's global edge . BTW, in airline industry, i don't think there's that "Transfer of technology" , particularly in MH. However, in the case of Proton; it's a matter of surviving the global challenges and to be in a successful group would likely be an advantage.

  4. Posted · Edited by Ruiz Razy · Report reply

    I am just providing some balance to this emotional discussion. Many are quick to bash AK, but really they are supporters or staff of MH. They may have vested interests. I am looking at this from a wider perspective and with a view to the history of MH since 1972. I am also trying to peer into the future - 2015 and beyond. I believe that Khazanah is worried about the AFTA FTA and Open Skies policies that will be coming into effect then. That is why they divested Proton (it may burden taxpayers due to increased competition from 2015 onwards) and now, they may be looking to divest MH too. MH will be far more capital intensive than Proton. So it probably scares the hell out of the Khazanah people. To me, TF and AK were asked to do national service by the PM. It is something they cannot say no to. When the share swap was announced in August 2011, my initial reaction was that the govt. has now got its grubby hands on AK. It will be the beginning of the end for them. However, to their credit, they are now preparing for 2015 by trying to become an ASEAN airline. As such their risks are diversified whereas MH is all about Malaysia. If the share swap is abandoned today, it can only mean good news for AK. They can be free from govt. meddling in their business plans once again, MAHB permitting (of course!). I am not so sure what will be MH's future. Perhaps another turnaround plan?

     

    I'm not a staff of MH ! Don't use the 2015 open sky policy as an excuse. IMHO both MH and AK should be ready for that. What needs to be appreciated is the actions and what are being said in between the lines. A good and far sighted businessmen and politician should think in such manner before saying yes to what's on the table. Problems with MH now should easily be seen as a bi-product taken 3-5 years ago. As an example, one of MH problems now is shrinking connectivity and dated aircraft. Arrangements could easily be made for Lease - buy similar to Airbus offer for Eastern in 1980s.

     

    First and foremost AK should be allowed allowed to "rollover" it's business model across ASEAN and FAR EAST as what is happening now.

     

    As for MH , do allow them to collaborate only with the ones that are appropriate and truly complimentary to each other such as IAG or QF ( more so now if they are focussed for that ONEWorld) . Similarly in the case of Proton, VW would have been the better option for excellent track record of successfully transforming AUDI, SKODA, SEAT....etc. ( BTW i'm not a VW staff either)

     

    As mentioned earlier, that 10 months have proved the imbalances of collaboration. Hey , look at HND slots!

     

    In the end, i'm a Malaysian and I do want both to succeed and not one killing the other! Especially when the other is the National Carrier.

  6. Posted · Report reply

    Being an outsider my feeling is that those saying NO to this share swap is just because they hate TF.. nothing more than that.

    I mean, how can u go to bed with the one you hate the most?? :D

    Dont get me wrong, the Unions are sometimes can lead to the downfall of certain company or country( just see some europe county these days).. It puzzled me to hear that MAS actually have 8 unions when in fact PETRONAS have non for their executive level. If MAS really beyond repair after the split i guess the union will loss the most (do they?)... and yes the critics can say they have undergone many turnaraound and what is the different for tis time around? MAS still have a dear heart in many malaysian and to see it how it perform today definately a sad thing. \

     

    heard rumours saying that khazanah will let go mas.. but are they willing to sell mas to foreign company?. If they brave enough i do hope that both IAG and Qantas will buy the share and trully turn MAS to be a force to be reckon with. If that happen not only MAS, MAHB and malaysian will see the benefit. it just that the so called pride of having malaysian owned company will be gone (but hey.. we still have AA aren`t we :D)

     

    I think you have missed a few key points in what a significant believes that it is one sided! I strongly believe that MH ( and unions) has had given the chance for TF but the following are some of the key actions that does not favour fairly towards MH :-

    1 HND operations was given all out to D7; when all premium carriers are fighting for its slot considering that it is more premium demand than NRT. If AK group is genuine, D7 should have gave their HND slots for MH to operate daily from KUL and D7 should have taken a daily NRT slots. Furthermore the AK Japan Operations would be based in NRT. Wouldn't that be logically and cost effective.

    2 Why Premium Economy was removed from 380? Globally, there's a growing trend for such market. Or were they trying to protect D7's premium cabins? FYI, CX & QF are enjoying good revenue including from this region.

    3 Why FY jets were killed after a few months of operation. "Did not make money" is not a valid excuse as airlines do need a year or two to break even and make money. FY jets could have easily fit the shorthaul market to further support MH connectivity. Killing FY Jets is a clear mark of protecting AK's market.

    4 If AK is serious in filling the shorthaul connectivity for MH; the interline connections should have been available ASAP.

    5 As a consumer, we noticed all of the fares of MH/FY/AK have increased and somehow there were no longer that fair trade. Please do not argue premium/legacy/LCC as in some cases we do see Premium airlines such as MH/CX/SQ are cheaper than AK/3K

    6 Transferring D7 pax. to MH for LON/PAR/BOM/CHC flights; was it a fair deal ? Plse don't argue "Market rate" as RM1 could also be a "Market rate"

    7 We dont't see any significant improvements in service delivery and products on MH. We know it takes time for the hardware , but some of the softwares can be done fairly quickly. A good example , no improvements in "kids" giveaways, "kids menu, amenities ..etc.

  7. Posted · Report reply

    Malaysia Airlines shares to be suspended amid tie-up doubt, say sources

     

    KUALA LUMPUR, May 1 – Shares of Malaysian Airline System (MAS) will be suspended from trading tomorrow, two sources said, amid speculation that the national carrier’s proposed RM1.1 billion share swap with AirAsia will be cancelled.

     

    Trading of the stock will be halted due to “a pending corporate announcement,” according to one of the sources, who declined to say if the share swap will be scrapped.

     

    The second source said MAS will announce the cancellation of the deal with the budget carrier. Both of the sources have direct knowledge of the proposed share swap.

     

    Speculation that the deal would collapse has grown in recent weeks as the plan encountered strong resistance from the 20,000-strong MAS union, which voiced concern that the tie-up resembled a takeover by AirAsia founder Tony Fernandes and his brand of aggressive cost cutting.

     

    Under the deal announced in August, Tune Air, controlled by AirAsia’s Fernandes and his deputy Kamarudin Meranun, would take a 20.5 percent stake in MAS and two board seats. In exchange, state investment arm Khazanah Nasional, the majority shareholder in MAS, would hold 10 per cent in AirAsia.

     

    The deal, formulated by Prime Minister Najib Razak and signed last August, was to help both carriers compete effectively against rivals like Tiger Airways and Singapore Airlines once the Southeast Asian open-sky policy comes into effect in 2015.

     

    In February, MAS reported its worst-ever loss of RM2.5 billion for 2011, shocking analysts who had expected the restructuring to limit losses.

     

    MAS and government officials couldn’t be reached for comment today because of a national public holiday.

    CIMB was the adviser for both companies on the deal, banking sources said. – Reuters

     

    Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/business/article/malaysia-airlines-shares-to-be-suspended-amid-tie-up-doubt-say-sources/

     

    Now will there b another flip flop decision on pale logo, FY jets , reinstating key economic destinations (ZRH,DXB, EWR .. Etc.) , BKI HUB... Etc.

  9. Posted · Report reply

    Apparently true at this point of time, the A380 is considered a different league of aircraft for MH. Current newly- delivered A330s and B737 will retain the swoosh livery. Older aircraft with cheatlines will be retired gradually, except B777. This leaves us which livery will be done on B777s.

    THEREFORE MH will be the only carrier with more than one livery ! Well done! reflects the difficulty in deciding a simple thing. What's next, why not multi crew uniforms by sector and aircraft type?

  10. Posted · Report reply

    I don't agree with this MAS-Air Asia collaboration thing and I also think it's one sided. But since it's done already, I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt but they need to produce results fast.

    It's coming close to a year ! N what do we c? Route cuts , the slaughtering of FY jets n noticed that fares r now going up across all the three of them !

     

     

  11. Posted · Report reply

    guys.. I've been thinking.. it seems that MH is changing their corporate branding? Because the new livery for A380 as we see in this thread, is all blue.. no red at all.. and I've been receiving their newsletters in my email inbox and the logos also do not have any red colours anymore.. IMHO, I think the reason is probably because color RED seems to be the current situation they are in (loss making instead of profit making).. and maybe they are superstitious or just want people not to associate MH with RED (the color of negative income?) and thus the new logo of blue only?

    RUBBISH ! MH logo was red from day 1 till 1987 n was profitable every year then except in 1982 ( about that time). it all balls down to the need for forward thinking leaders with no interest in making money today n don't care what its consequences in the future.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    Aiyo, who cares lah which way the wau is painted. The product inside has to have the WOW factor, especially since we are the eighth airline to fly the A380. It's not a novelty anymore.. It's a routine sight everywhere.

     

    Also, in terms of flip flipping and inconsistencies .. In the corporate world, they do 'brainstorming' to come out with new ideas and decide what is the best way forward. In MAS, they test everything out in real life and THEN brainstorm!!

    That is what I call WOW!

     

    At least we don't have a burung or kambing on our tail!!

     

    Somehow the "burung" n "kambing" have done much better thn MH

  20. Posted · Report reply

    For once, we dont have accountants deciding how much paint should be put on the plane and ignoring the intangible PR benefits of an outstanding livery. I always thought the repainting back to normal livery of the Hibiscus & Heliconia was a mistake. Only bean-counters would make that narrow, myopic decision.

    ACTUALLY... the current board in MH is dominated by Accountants! Could be the main reasons y there were so many route exit strategies being implemented ?

  24. Posted · Report reply

    Personally won't think this is ideal for D7. Rather set up the LCC in US or Europe. Middle East people are way too rich to travel on low cost.

    Failure of D7 to sustain AUH was a good reminder that long haul low cost may likely not work from M/East

    Didn't know Middle East got a lot of migrant workers... and where do they head to? Don't seem them much hanging around in Malaysia... And when you mentioned migrant workers, are they low income one too like Bangladeshi?

    Now that's realistic, but that translates for LCC operating flights to the sub continent only ( Pakistan, Bangladesh and India) . However, the big three gulf carriers ( EK,EY and QR) may still pose a significant challenge as they have the capacity and means to match LCC fares. Afterall, their main income comes from significantly from premium cabins.

×
×
  • Create New...