Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

According to this report, AF-KL wants to buy a 49% stake in MH and would like to setup KUL as an MRO hub. Would the term be like DL's purchase of VS? JL meanwhile only wants 25% https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airlines-m-a/air-france-klm-proposes-buying-49-of-malaysia-airlines-jal-seeks-smaller-stake-sources-idUSKBN1ZK0DX

Might as well just close down MH. This stinks of a D7 bailout...

More details of AK's bid emerging 1) A380 is gone, and Khazanah to bear the cost of the debt. Leased A332 also gone. 737MAX will not be taken up. 2) Khazanah to bear retrenchment costs 3) No golden shares, AK to call the shots fully 4) FY not included in deal, MASwings sold. 5) MH branding is gone. All in all, Khazanah will have to bear RM 8 billion in costs... https://focusmalaysia.my/mainstream/airasias-takeover-of-malaysia-airlines-may-cost-khazanah-over-rm8-bil/?fbclid=IwAR3IUZGY-7eep-5v6XElQFQBK3pQ8doiGALQ0RjNKLjHh7yEyfCRcDKS7ws

AirAsia, JAL front runner to take over MAS - Air France-KLM & Malindo also bidded. https://focusmalaysia.my/mainstream/airasia-appears-in-the-lead-to-take-over-malaysia-airlines/?fbclid=IwAR3LxuL_grh_KBKJDMW_R00mGgMXoKSKJNACOfK53SuVnrGscZKE86g-wWc

As long as the question of ownership of MH is not solved, forget talking about buying/leasing new planes to replace the A330s.

True, but if the CEO is cool towards selling to foreign investors, then that would be a problem as well. Already rumour has it that Raja Azmi is being replaced because he is opposed to a sale of MAHB to Vinci Airports.

No point having improved CASK when your RASK is not improved. The A380 has low CASK but yet MH can't make scheduled flights profitable.

The 78X carries way more passengers in 2-class arrangement than the 789, so I honestly don't see how it could be a perfect replacement for the A333s. Besides, the 789 were ordered for expansion as well as replacement. Yes they have A350s for long range, but they only have 6 to serve LHR. How are they going to schedule the 6 for expanded flights when they already use 4 of the 6 for daily LHR rotations?

All they need is a CEO that can help facilitate the sale of MAHB to foreign investors.

Probably the travel agency had arranged for buses to take them into the city.

Demand for those who want to go for Umrah but at the same time want to take a stop at KUL? Given the long layover they can go into KL, spend the entire day, then go off to JED.

Interesting talking about the marketing stuff. From what I heard internally, things aren't exactly on the mend.

Interesting that LATAM & MH is tying up now, given how LATAM is severing connections with big OW carriers on the account of it leaving OW for SkyTeam after DL took a large stake in the company.

It's not the rules that's the problem. It's the implementation. I honestly doubt that they would be able to do the same as the UK CAA.

I'll save the applause when it's actually proven that merging MAVCOM and CAAM will not erode consumer rights. I seriously doubt that it will be more efficient & cost effective. I mean, just look at e-hailing and how it was screwed up by the MoT's arbitrary actions.

Technically that's the case. Not sure if the airline can still list on Kiwi.com & ask them to stop listing on AirAsia's site. From the looks of things they only sell tickets to select routes - AKL, BCN, DOH, DXB IST, LHR & MAD. Funny thing is you can actually buy MH flights to LHR!

I don't think the airline has any say if they are okay with listing on Kiwi.com. In any case, the airlines still wins because they get extra revenue from an additional marketing channel.

The charges are a bit convoluted compared to MY. https://www.caat.or.th/en/archives/25480 http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip pdf/GEN/GEN 4/GEN 4.2/Air Navigation Service Charges.pdf

Najib never said FAA audit. He was referring to the ICAO audit - which is basically the standard to which the FAA IASA is following. It will. Took them long enough to form a task force. https://www.theborneopost.com/2019/11/18/task-force-formed-to-oversee-caam-corrective-measures/

Because the remit of ensuring air safety should be separate from the act of promoting aviation in the country. There may be conflicts of interest there. Rather than combining them, make their roles clearer, in that MAVCOM should focus on the front end portion - that is, airlines, passengers & airports, while CAAM focuses on safety, regulations & navigation systems.

What's more important is the fact that they were able to rectify the situation quickly so that didn't happen. Why not now?

Not going to work that way. Pretty sure that someone (and you know who that someone is) is going to argue that now that MAVCOM is under CAAM, they should cut the tax, which undoubtedly will happen to curry favour with the voters, and thus CAAM ends up with less funding & more to do.

Won't work. Why be the jack of all trades and master of none?

The problem with this is that the technically minded won't want to join the government because of less than lucrative pay. Why would they, when they can join the private sector & earn so much more. On another note, maybe this strengthens the case for MAVCOM's existence, given how the FAA IASA program focuses only on the safety aspect of things.

No new codeshares. Existing codeshares will remain. As for standards, the FAA uses ICAO standards actually. To say that this is a slap in the face would be an understatement. If this had happened in 2014, then it would have been understandable, even if it's not forgivable. What happened in the intervening years that led to this?