Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

RM 150 to buy things they want to use, yes. RM 150 to go to the government, oh hell no!

Since when does Singapore care about regional sensitivities? If MH really wants to ape SQ for national pride, they would have flown where SQ flew very early on. They would have bought 747s in the 1970s, not the 1980s because SQ was already flying 747s before MH. Look at MH's history. You'll see that the story about developing domestic routes does hold water.

MoU to expand scope of co-operation signed by MH...with SQ. https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/malaysia-airlines-seeks-expand-scope-cooperation-singapore-airlines

Missing the point entirely...

Even if it cost that much, you think they can recoup it with the yields they have on that flight? Why do you think AirAsia sells Pak Nasser Nasi Lemak for RM 15, when you can easily buy a Nasi Lemak on ground for less than RM 5?

What is there to be unhappy about, and why the HELL is he taking sides with Russia? If Russia really didn't do it, then why did they attempt all those lame attempts at a cover up? Simple thing like that also cannot think?! http://www.bernama.com/en/general/news.php?id=1737340

PNH high yielding route? Not really.

So what would be the first EU destination D7 have their eyes on? https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/284938/paris-2019-game-changing-eu-asean-open-skies-deal-nears/

Because it wasn't an inherent danger. It didn't make the aircraft inherently unairworthy.

IAG LoIs have a high chance of turning into an order. Argue all you like, but they wouldn't even be thinking about an LoI if they're not convinced about the MAX.

IAG orders 200 737MAX. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-06-18-International-Airlines-Group-Announces-Intent-to-Buy-200-Boeing-737-MAX-Airplanes

There's no denying that Boeing made a mistake in not providing redundant backups, but that doesn't make the aircraft inherently unsafe. The so-called design error didn't make the aircraft inherently unworthy. Same with the MCAS. Remember, no one single factor causes a crash, it's a chain of factors that contribute to a crash, and if any one of those chains were eliminated, the crash may have been avoided. Also, you do realize that the FAA head slot was empty since January 2018 because the term of the previous head appointed under the Obama administration had ended? So the appointment was not because the FAA head was sacked due to the MAX crash, it's because they only got around to nominate the FAA head after all the hoopla started!

Just because it's not operational, doesn't mean it's not safe. That's a fallacy. You do realize that there are bureaucratic hassles that they need to deal with? Considering how dysfunctional the US government is at the moment, I'm not surprised that it's taking them so long. As for Muilenburg's statement, of course he's going to say that. But that doesn't mean they designed an aircraft that was inherently unsafe to the point that mass hysteria is warranted.

We've come full circle. Previously long haul trips were done on narrowbody jets like the 707 & the DC-8. Now we're back to narrowbody jets on long haul!

I've read the article and it proves nothing, just that Germans don't allow MAX ferry flights. What does that prove? The article itself said that the plane made it to Stockholm, so I guess other European countries feel that the MAX is safe enough to at least fly around their airspace.

And this proves what exactly?

Can you really though? It's like only one hour...

I've read all that is there to be read, and I've watched all that's there to be read. And my opinion remains the same. The aircraft is not unairworthy, not then and definitely not now.

Only when it's clear that the crashes are caused by unairworthiness. Right now, there's only circumstantial proof that the crashes are caused by unairworthiness. Ethiopia is quick to blame the airplane, but as facts emerge, it's not as black & white as you'd think it is. Same goes for Indonesia - how is it that the day before the accident, that same aircraft was able to land safely after having the exact same problem? And why didn't Lion Air properly fix the problem knowing that there was an issue? It's easy to blame the plane & dismiss concerns over pilot & airline competency as veiled racism, but in actual fact those factors must be taken into account as well since a plane is only as safe as the operator.

Because it's mass hysteria brought on by uninformed media sources. I've said it once, I'll say it again - if there's anything inherently wrong with the MAX, we'd be seeing far more crashes already. But here's the thing, look at who crashed the MAX - Lion Air, which has a history of crashes & accidents, and Ethiopian, who crashed a 737-800 under similar circumstances back in 2010. Plus the American government is currently dysfunctional. If this had happened during any other president's watch, the MAX would definitely be flying by now. I ask you, why aren't we seeing more MAX crashes? Why is it that we're not seeing Southwest, American or Air Canada, the three airline with the most MAX 8 fleet have zero crashes between them?

I think he meant from websites like Airlineroute that usually provide updates whenever an airline includes an aircraft upgage/downgauge in the GDS schedule. Maybe this is just a one-off equipment swap.

Malls make a hell of a lot more money than a simple terminal.

NMIA is much more feasible & undoubtedly less costly than NORIA. The only reason the government would consider NORIA is because some pockets need to be filled. Heck, why not have TF chip in some money to build his own LCC & have a Northern hub...

I'm honestly in favour of this plan. Shelve Kulim, close down Bayan Lepas, build a rail connection to the island from the airport, it can definitely work. Let's just hope saner heads prevail up there in Putrajaya.

Having a degree is not a measure of intelligence. I know Ph.D holders who are dumb, and I know SPM holders who are smart.