Ruiz Razy

The above cost is an issue , particularly amongst accountants !, What most failed in this industry is the fact that this is very competitive and a forward thinking products ( comprising attractive fares, meals, comfort and amenities) will likely campture the greatest rewards. Specifically, investments of products should be consistently be carried out all the way from those little things like choice of drinks, hot towels to the aircraft itself. I'm sure none of us would like to still be on a 1986 Proton Saga taxi for the same fare as say the new 2010 Saga. Would you? Insufficient load, is not a good excuse and this is specifically on Marketing strategy; of course the abovesaid amenities do help.

Seriously, going paperless is a good way forward and capitalizing the IFE as part of the integral of "paper materials / literature" do have great advantages. Amongst key advantages are : - 1 Materials can be updated easily and fairly quickly, end of month,,,etc. 2 Materials may even be allocated to specific sectors/routes, i.e. arabic for M/East bound flights, Japaneese for Japan ..etc. 3 Lighter aircraft weight, lesser OPEX However, it needs to be presentable and easy to manage and navigate, something like ala I-Pod/ I - PAd would be fantastic. I remembered once I complemented the effort to have the menu on PTV screen by MH in this forum, however, it was not as detailed as the paper menu's and it's a distraction when it flashes out from the screen, esp. when one is enjoying the IFE. As such , even these menu requires it's own section within the IFE system. We don't even know what drinks are available and the actual "story" of the meal. In fact, one step beyond is to allow the passengers to select their choices on screen before meals are being served would be something worth thinking. Tho' we may not anticipate 100% compliance from the passengers , but it is something that can easily reduce serving time and there's that forward thinking factor. Even , requests for drinks and snacks may even be in similar method; in addition to the usual walk around by crew. With the advancement of technology and the increasingly number of IT savy , it would be a natural thing for an airline to adapt and be creative in this direction. Perhaps, an option for internet check in / managing bookings / meal requests for future flights and live arrivals ( incl. baggage carousel) and departures ( inc. gates) would be a must within the IFE system soon! Having 500 / 1000 channels / entertainment options is amazing , but having the above complimentary items would be perfect!, especially in Green awareness; Mind you Green here are not just the uniforms, but green with respect to Mother Nature

This 738 concept base @ BKI sounds a good step forward in reinforcing BKI; once the load is established, wide body aircraft will be able to operate on regular basis. Tho' this may happen "later" In fact, similar lines may be worth exploring for other two key hubs ( KCH and PEN) and this can be extended to other ports of call to regional points (i.e. LGK - HKG ??), should there is a need.

I suppose these premiums are doing well on MH? There's no harm giving some discounts for the premiums , as one can bring a companion. They do have companion redemption tickets, but it remains high ( tho' its less than the usual)

Would be fantastic if it develops into regular schedule 738 service!......with the arrivals of the 738s , it's about time to start aiming for every major cities in Japan. Not just Hokkaido ( I assume it's Sapporo) even reintroduction of NGO and FUK as well.

Yeap, 0320 arrival does not work well @ KUL , KUL is not DXB. Earliest "good and convenient" arrival should be from 0530 onwards, just nice to catch the 0600 train and be at KUL Hotel/home by 0700. The 767/787 argument further supports for MH to acquire Dreamliners ASAP.

Serious considerations needs to be given. Although DJ moves "up market", traffic catchment remains the same and literally, price sensitve travellers may still take these "up market" carriers if financially, the whole experience works in their favour. Furthermore Aussie population base remains low and it's growth rate are not as significant as Indonesia, China or India; Even Malaysia's growth is higher than Australia. IMHO, AK future expansion may have better chances by acquiring an Indian or main land Chinese Carrier. AK may not necessarily be the majority share holder, by "selling" their good image as franchise arrangement may also work well. Of course to start one from zero would be a difficult task.

Sounds like the good old times of wide variety of frequencies are slowly coming back! Let's hope that it remains sustainable in demand at least. Of course ideally, twice daily OPs to all Aussies State capitals ( including ADL and even DRW) would be the minimum in ensuring MH's KUL as a good "distribution" hub to Australia.

I think we should consider the numbers of ERL and those RM9 O/w Red Busses aswell b4 making such deductions.

So, we can conclude here that the equation of MH 738s BKI - HND may likely not maximising HND's best potential.

FYI, An aircraft frame can be used up to 20 - 25 years before being "recycled" into frying pans, containers,...etc. This is of course subject to flying hours numbers as well. In case of MH, their 732s and F27 were used since 1972 and 1968 respectively and were disposed around 1992 and 1989, that's 20 years. Similarly, MH 742 were active since 1982!, though it may be stored right now, but it can still be used. In fact, MSA 731's were used way up to the 1990's , equivalent to 25 years! In this case,say the youngest of the antique 333s were delivered in late 1995 or early 1996 ( 9M-MKJ); that translates to it can be used up to 2015 - 2016. That's an extra 2 - 3 years; assuming MH intents to keep for up to 20 years. Alternatively , the newer 332s may be another option and can be kept way up to 2020 if need be. Finally, the Leased arrangements may work in their favour as the rates for these aircraft may decrease gradually and there would not be any Asset Devaluation inmplications to P/L of MH.

Just for thought can 738 fly nonstop to ADL from KUL? If so, MH should consider double daily! that will be a good comeback to Aussie and supports KUL further as a HUB. Alternatively, smaller 736s may have the range and the similar Operating Nature with 738s would be good for MH. But in this case, 3 daily flights may do the trick. It can even be expanded to other ports within similar range. Of course the amenities should be comparable to new 330s and 380s.

0120 departure is actually ideal in the sense that one will have One full day with dinner b4 flying to KUL and can be done without having the need to rush back to airport. Ideal for Premium Travellers, even for tourists and locals ( Japannese as they need not have to take a day off flying!). Not forgetting that HND is much closer to TYO , compared to NRT. Of course MH request for DAILY HND OPS would be perfect! KUL - HND DAILY and have one of the 2 allocated daily slots from NRT for secondary hubs of BKI / KCH / PEN and maybe LGK. In the end, if HND opens up greater, it will be the main "LHR // JFK" of TYO and NRT would be seen as a supplementary port like " LGW/STN // EWR "

Some points to ponder on the above statements. 1 HND would likely attract more premiums considering that it's the closest airport to TYO compared to NRT. Esp. considering the convenience from Downtown TYO and its also well connected to other JPN's Domestic Network. Furthermore getting a slot there is seen as getting something very valuable like LHR. Wouldn't it be more sensible to have those ex KUL 772s to HND and let the BKI 738s to NRT ? 2 MH must ensure ( maybe with warranty - if not, say 200% extra miles or 50% cash refund? ) that all of these JPNs 738 services are on the new 738s as promised and not on the leased 738s as these flights will be flying for 4 -5 hours and it may cause greater discomfort if the leased ones are used. 3 It seems that new 738s will be initally based in BKI, anything for ex KUL for Klang Valley customers to try ?

Ummm another support here. Excellent! Back to serious business, Crew training and deployment would be another added savings here; as they can be rotated within the same 333s and 380s. Furthermore, O&M ( including spares) would most likely be similar. Similarly, some 744s may also be worth keeping for freight businesses as well.

Perhaps keeping some say 3 -5 of existing 333s for the next five years may be worth considering for short and high density flights such as SIN, PEN , KCH and BKI from KUL. Furthermore, if KBR expanded, it can seasonally be used for the last 1840 flight out from KUL / Last flight to KUL as that particular flight is the most sought after esp. during festive seasons and weekends. Similarly for TGG / LGK and maybe AOR. Furthermore, this type may also be usefull for Charter Operations to China, India and Australia when the need arises. However, product improvements is essentially needed. The very least is to have similar products as 738's for both classes and it does not necessary have lie flat seats for Club. One of the biggest advantages is that this move may not require extensive CAPEX and the newer frames can be focussed in other needed markets. Once the replacement for 777 comes in ( hopefully those sexy dreamliners) , these "Antique" 333's can easily be replaced with the exisitng 777s or the newer 333s by then. This is something that is worth considering.

Ummmm, Sexy Curves from front to back and the blended wings reinforces the beauty of art within technology. Would be excellent if we see such in those red and blue Wau's! After all, the curves of the Wau's matches the sexy curves of Dreamliners perfectly.

As a "Source of Funds for Greece's Financial Assistance" perhaps?

KUL - MAN - EWR / JFK may be another alternative, There may be better prospect for premiums for the EWR / JFK and the back can be filled mainly the low yield MAN trafic. Introducing a daily with excellent amenities of 787 / 77W / 380 may also further encourage demand for the MAN - EWR/JFK leg. However, premium travellers essentially needs good and convenient timing with daily ops. Something that MH may be difficult for MH to bare. Not forgeting this idea is subject to 5th Freedom rights as well. Moving forward, a Combi - Mixed Passenger - Freigher of A380 may be another good way in managing yield with good backing from Freighter Demand. Perhaps the actual passenger load is equivalent to 77W in 4 class configuration and the rest being reserved for Cargo. In fact, it may also be used for KUL - LAX / KUL - EZE and maybe KUL - YVR nonstop ? A good precedent case was KLM in the 1990s, A large number of the 74Es did wonderful job of being a comprehensive passenger and cargo airline. Unfortunately , there were also some concerns by some quarters over security with regards to the partitioning between the Passenger and Cargo Areas particularly post 9/11.

The most appropriate way to deploy these new and "exciting" birds should be to places with the highest potential yield returns and with the most challenging routes for such size capacity first before deploying to other routes, regardless India, China , Australia etc. Perhaps DXB may be a good move to regain some grounds from EK.

This is where good airport management efficiency and civil aviation friendly government will play a big role. AMS is a fine example, 16 million nation population base but managed to be a good hub with excellent OD ( thanks to the strong and high income base). Even SIN for a city state population of around 4.0 million manages to have an extremely good number of pax. In the end, a strong high income population base do help and will have greater impact with a nation with high population but with less high income base. It will work better for premium demand and this may likely encourage other foreign legacy carriers to establish a hub. As observed for QF/BA @ SIN, DL(formerly NW) and UA @ NRT. Furthermore the high income society would likely travel more frequently and to major / key financial centres for trade ( ZRH , JFK, LHR , HKG, PVG, NRT/HND..etc. would be a must) and would also take leisure holidays at least once a year ( DPS, OOL/BNE, including short hops to LGK/BKI/KCH...etc.) This effectively create good demand for both the LCC and Legacy Carriers as well, as these people would travel frequently, as said earlier. Statistically, the 9 million pax in SIN also translates that the entire population of SIN would have travelled 2.25 times ! ( Of course tourist arrivals and transit pax needs to be considered as well.) However, to create greater and sustain high and good consistent income would be essential in ensuring continuous success. Good governance is needed for such mission. Tourism may also be seen as another good contributor , however, it's votality in numbers and fast response to news ( including rumours) would not be an easy task. SARS/Bird Flu outbreaks r good examples that the number of tourist arrivals can easily be a big negative within a day and would lasts for a few months! Of course good and stable governance with consistant tourism related policy would help. We must also never forget a middle / low income "worker" would likely not spend as much money as a high income frequent traveller at the airport shops! Finally, good base carrier do have the advantages interms of thru' traffic. Specifically, it should be seemless efficiency and good value for money. Something that BA is trying to achieve at T5 LHR.

Now, the next logical thing to deduce is that based on the above, the proportion of expenses for the airport development / expenditure ( CAPEX and OPEX) should be based on such breakdown. Is that the case here? However, we must not forget the growth in numbers as such may influence the CAPEX determination. The next question would be to what extend that justify such Airport CAPEX breakdown between LCC and Legacy Carriers? BTW, Azizul must have been taking a break watching Spain vs Germany that he was able to do such analyses at that time of the hour.

What's next? Specially designed fuselage with "Pee Hole" and catheters directly to passenger's seat? . Effectively toilet would no longer be needed and more space for standing "guests"

Very well said. In the end, it remains difficult for such LCC to sustain. Do note that low fares may be applicable to say the first 5% of the seats and rises up. The higher fare categories may still make Legacy Carriers attractive and to charge low fares throughout the aircraft may bleed the airline further. I've just checked D7's Christmas flights to PER on XL for three , the fare seems to be similar to MH Club if one considers the Buy one get one free offer and redeem the third from Enrich. In the end, smart travellers with FQTV and once all the addons are included , the fare may likely remain the same. And no need to mention which will they opt for.