Ruiz Razy

Okay, the fact remains I can't still fly to these places directly on MH. What's the point? It's still an inconvenient to change aircraft / terminal ( in some cases). Unless the "connecting" fare is attractive and cheap. Will the add on be just RM100 oneway ( all inclusive) to connect to say ZRH / BCN from FCO / AMS? Or will I get double enrich miles for opting such inconveniences? The issue here is how can this win customers from flying on EK / QR / KL to say MAD / ZRH / BCN via their hubs with greater connectivity ( compared to just 3 flights a week) ? The only advantage here is direct sales from MH and no real advantage to customers or an attractive package to for us your customers.

Azizul's posted statistics do give a good overview of Airport Developments Globally. Now the next step forward is to analyse as a whole ( macro context) what increases airport travellers and what makes money. IMHO, my initial analyses are ..... KUL as an OD is at "disadvantage" compared to other 3 in the region: literally.... 1 SIN - High income City State; Excellent OD base particularly for Premium Travellers / Legacy Carriers 2 BKK - Extremely good tourism as a nation. There's no need to advertise much. However recent events may compromise such scenario. 3 CGK - High population base with 1% are High Income ( works well for legacy and premium demand) and High propotion of "exported" workforce, this creates good volume of budget travellers. If we look at all of the above, Klang Valley lacks of High Income Society and we are more concentrated on Medium and Upper Medium Class Society. This favours more for budget travellers , but the volume is not as significant as the "exported" workforce. And yet we don't have enough volume to support a good premium base. That's y KUL is having difficulty to attarct Legacy carriers like QF, BA, AF ..etc. If say Malaysia transforms into a High Income society as inspired by someone, we should not have a problem in having a good premium base. Even as a HUB, a strong and good OD presence is highly essential. SIN works well for QF-BA as the local traffic could easily "fill in" the gap available. However, KUL and Malaysia's popularity in M/East has managed to offset some of our disadvantages and from the way it looks , it is a market that we can't choose to ignore. What more, these are mainly compromises of High Income Society and Upper Middle Class. We can also deduce that if the airport taxes are taken into consideration, MH group remains the biggest contributor to MAHB compared to AK in the Domestic Segment. I'm sure Internationally MH remains the biggest.

VIE can happen when there's a 737 that can fly nonstop from KUL at full load.

Maybe it's not MH fault. I suspect it has to do with some political influences that were afraid of losing National Identity. And when they say it's ok .... it will be too late! Proton and VW is a classic example. In the end VW no longer have any interest. Do note that VW have a very good track record of transformation. SEAT and SKODA are fine examples by them.

In the end; our formula would most likely be: - Profit = High Yield High Yield = Good Yield Managment Good Yield Managment = High Premium C and F + low operating cost High Preimum C and F = Daily Services + Good Promos + Good links with business communities Therefore : - Good Profit = Daily Services + Good Promos + good links with business communities + Low Operating cost. Feel free to add further......

I suppose the reason y they did not dare to increase is they may have been afraid of poor loads and 290+ seater T7s may have been too big. This is where Dreamliners would fit the picture perfect.

I'm pleased to c that this forum is becoming better in analyzing facts and figures .... in no time we all should get an MBA - Masters in Business Aviation! If only this user could provide one! Syabas to all. BTW, the ratio mentioned of " 1 every 2.7" is a figure of speach when analyzing a statistical data. Please do not get overbored by it.

This is what we call "Yield Management". U may have noticed some of my remarks years ago did highlighted this issue. In a nuttshell, Premium Business Class / First Class are the ones that bring in profits to Legacy Carriers. In addition cargo revenues are said to be a better contributor compared to Economy class. Most Legacy Carriers are losing now as Business Class travellers have dropped and some have opted to travel on Economy. When we look in the case of EZE, cargo is said to be good as it is one of the very few link between Asia - South America and South Africa - South America. Similarly in passenger traffic, but it must have been a challenge as the volume of trade between the said regions are comparatively low compared to the typical connectivity of Europe - US, ASEAN - Australia..etc. In the end MH did a good job considering that they had some advantages and yet some challenges within this region. In the case of ZRH, being one of the most important Financial Centres and one of the highest GDP nation with one of the most diplomatic nation: I would say it's rather strange that MH were not able to make money from such perspective. The need for daily ( as highlighted on various occassion) services is essential for business comunities..that could be the case probably. But then again connecting two financianl centres of the world like SIN - ZRH automatically translates that Business Class is essential and wud not be a major task to promote such services. In this case, one wud say that this is where KUL is lacking. Another problem here is Malaysians being typical Malaysians ( including Malaysian organizations) are generally carefull when it comes to spending money. In addition they do expect First Class service, but are only willing to pay peanuts ( most likely expect to b ugraded for free!); therefore Malaysians are mainly Economy Class travellers community. This was the main case y MH has difficulty to sell Premium Seats at good fares and has compromised yield significantly. This is proven when BA main reasons for pulling out from KUL was not b'coz of load factors but poor yield and were not able to sell their premium products. In this scenario, SQ I wud say had the advantages of one good premium demand as SIN itself is a global financial centre and not forgetting that most Singaporean companies wud make it a culture that their officers wud be eligle to travel on at least Business Class for duty travel ( particularly for long haul).

Wud be interesting to c the impact of SZB and FY in the above KUL performance within the Domestic Services. If MH/FY is considered as one group, they may be "regaining" some numbers. The other thing is the appox. 10 million total pax. wud also mean that every 1 in 2.7 Malaysians do travel in/out of KUL annually. Not Bad.

Wonder when will the "other 5 star" be phasing out the T7s? If not mistaken they got their first a month earlier from SQ and it's still active on key routes. Did see some signs of "aged" on the last flight I took back in April 2010. Hopefully not more than 3 - 4 years.....

Perhaps it's a business stategy , to add some pressure to the manufacturer that MH is not a small monkey business and MH is a serious player!; Maybe get that manufacturer to give more discounts for the other aircraft ordered.

The above detailed statistics did consider In and Out. That's y we have yr 593 seaters as it equals to almost 80% load factors for the "typical" MH 744. BTW, yes cargo is another big plus. BTW, wud be interesting if we could similar analysis for EWR and ZRH .

Details please. RM 46 million what is it for? Will it be 1 Terminal expansion? Which part... Departure Gates, Baggage Reclaim @ Arrival or Landside Area? 2 Increasing aircraft bays? Specifically Remote or Full Contact Stands? 3 Bay upgrades to Code D / E ? 4 RNWY expansion / upgrade? Is it just the Length or supporting TXWY ? The amount mentioned would not be enough for all and IMHO KBR desperately need all of the above.

One does not have to be a University Graduate to see the success of KBR. It's obvious, for the following reasons: - 1. The longest distance, time and not 100% Highway by road from KL. Hello! 2. A large number of successfull Kelantanese works in KL. I noticed the "NIKs" are well known for business skills. We have one with MH here right? And the next few are more physicological influences.... 3. Pahamin ( A kelantanese) and it's links to AK may have created some sense of strong "Kelantan" connection to AK. 4. MH and the Wau logo, may have also similar vibes to the East Coast ( including Kelantan). The question here is KBR capable of accomodating such pax. volume? I don't think so; if not, what is the game plan?

To further expand the above statistics, if all the above were to be divided by 104 ( 2 flights a week in a year); we would see: - EZE almost 246 seats occupied per flight CPT 114 seats occupied per flight JNB 233 seats occupied per flight The above would translate that the 380+ seater 744 have been doing rather well for MH on this route. This is a good point to prove the viability of this interesting route. This should simply "shut up" for those that are critical about the viability of this EZE route. In fact, hypotatically, if there were to be a 250 seater aircraft available that can fly non stop to EZE from KUL, MH should not have any problem flying to EZE! Do note that 2009 was one of the most difficult year, if our RM continues to be strong and trade between M'sia and Latin America / South Africa continues to be bullish, MH would not have any problem in operating this route. I would say MH has done a good job . Syabas! Keep it up! What will be interesting is to know what's next for Latin America? Perhaps Santiago de Chile or Rio as an extension from EZE route? And how will South Africa develop further? Daily to JNB by 2020? All of these are not imposibble if the right focus of service products are offered. Not forgetting this has to be consistently better that others.

Yeap, the sooner these new 77W arrives, the more cost savings! , The 4 engined 744's consumes more fuel compared to the twin engines 77Ws , both at almost similar capacity and range (may be some crossings may be problamatic due to it's ETOPS limitations). But then again it should not be a problem flying to EUR / AUS / AFRICA from KUL. A far sighted airline wud have ordered years ago or alternatively , they cud have leased them first ( like someone did) and be operating right now! .

Will this particular equipement be with the new Skyinterior ? Will it have the much awaited and extra long overdue of "MH new improved products" ? Wouldn't it be great to have such?

Alternatively upgrade EY with 2-4-2 seating abreast ( on top of improvered IFE) . This will definately "top up the notch" against others! MH can have another item to "brag" - WIDEST ECONOMY SEATS! Aircraft will be lighter, less fuel consumption plus greater satisfaction by their "Guests". However, yield / revenue management may need to be scrutinized further.

T7 is a 300 seater aircraft , which has proven that it's big for MH operations into Europe such as ZRH / VIE / MUC / ARN and even in maintaining daily ops to FRA / CDG / FCO /AKL / ADL. Ideally a 200 - 250 seater with say just 24 - 30 seats for premium club and remaining 170 - 220 economy and eco. plus would be ideal fit for MH. This is where 764 / 332 may do the trick ( as an interim) , similar to CO / AA / UA and even JL / NH / BA have started such move ( e.g. JL's ops to KUL and NH's / JL's opts into SIN. That's how EK started "conquering" every airports in Europe with 332s! If a 250 seater is available , operations to AKL / ADL / FRA may be daily, which is more convenient and preferred compared to just 4 - 5 times a week. Once capacity builts up, twice daily ops would be FANTASTIC as there wud be greater choices and variety , compared to a single daily of 772 or 380. In the long run Dreamliners / A350s are best fit for such ops. IMHO, MH livery wud look sexier in Dreamliners then A350s.

767-400 as interim measure?

How about east - west M'sia flights? They are at least 1:30 hours flight. Variety of Short programmes including live local /sports news would be fantastic. This should also include short silent features ( no need for headsets) would be a good feature for kids like Mr Bean , Just for Laughs,..etc. By giving options of entertainment would also be seen a product difference of a 5 star compared to low cost or "other" four star carrier that was recently awarded as "Most Improved Service Airline" Drop down Screens would only be sensible for just within the Peninsular and within Sarawak or witihin Sabah only. To have two sets of configurations of an aircraft type with huge difference in product amenities ( i.e. IFE systems - PTV or common) would liklely need a good regime of aircraft management to ensure that lower product offering would not be used for the longer flights at all.

At the end of the day, airline industry is a business; therefore such route would proceed if an airline makes money, regardless who. Making money does not easily be translated with full / high loads, the core has always been the yield. There has been cases with high yield with just say 60 -70 % that are financially more sound and feasible compared to an extremely low yield with 90 -100%.....unless someone is willing to cover the P/L.

Do feel that there's some truth and logical explaination from the MH Dato' CEO ; A Comprehensive Civil Aviation Masterplan Policy is rather essential. Not just merely in awarding routes but to further question critical issues including relating to our tourism sector, types of tourists, GDP, Foreign Exchange, Jobs ....etc. ;

This illustrates further a good justification and sense if AK participates; effectively if a route is not viable by Air Macau, AK can come in and effectively bring greater tourism potential to MFM. If Air Macau rejects, this wud b at the expense of MACAU tourism industry.

Considering that AK and it's team dominates MFM; Perhaps they should takeover Viva Macau. This can be a step closer to China.