leon t

something is really amiss here - where does any country that buys a fighter jets and use it for only 10 years? and how was the purchasing process and evaluation in the very first place? Shouldnt RMAF knows about the "high" costs of maintenance when it assesses and evaluate the MIG-29s? In many countries, fighter planes have been operated much more than just 10 short years - even the USAF F15s have been in ops for nearly 23 years! And am sure, India's russian fighters have served more than 10 years. Eevn down south, their F16s are already over 10 years and their F-5s are more than 25 years. There must be something or some agendas for buying these MIGs in the veryu first place and some people must be very fifthy rich for buying these planes.

its impossible for esp any foreign media not to make an issue if a D7 had actually took-off "chunks of roof" - its sheer stupidity to even say such things

thats why to reduce its costs - MH should not take in the A380s bec it will not likely to fill up its 550 pax load and will do so only if it offers deeper fare discounts which will work against its margin.

AX is given rights toland at Orly - but its pretty near Paris so not a problem - but not sure if this sector have enough load to justify it - and AX cant do it non-stop with its A333s and have limited A340s to run the service. On whether if its a 24 hr decision to allow AX traffic rights into France - believed this process/request have been int he works for some weeks already and could well be a part of the negotiations with Air Asia buying Airbus planes.

Its great mistake to compare MH to SQ - as SQ even now flies 3 times daily to London (2 daily using the A380 and 1 on the 773ER) whilst MH can barely hold on to 2 flights daily and SQ flies 3 times daily to US and on certain days even 5 times daily - whereas MH cant even hold on to one daily to LAX. Why? And during the better economic tims kust 18 mths back SQ can have US$1 billion profits whereas MH been losing billions and make only paltry millions by selling its assets like buidlings only - why do u think that is so with MH? There are many such comparisons why SQ beats MH in fligh frequency and in all aspects of airline ops. It will really be interesting how MH can fill up its seats on A380 and even make money on this. What MH seriously needed is to replace its 744s with newer planes like the 773ERs and replace their very aeging A330s to make it efficient and somewhat profitable.

all along believed that MH should Not have ordered the A380 as its too big for the routes except SYD-KUL-LHR if its a one daily flight. Still believe that the mainr eason MH chose the A380 is more for "looking good that it have" and want to be like "the big boys" - but seriously MH is never and esp now in the big league. Even b4 the economic crisis, its 3 daily flights to LHR already was cut back to 2 daily bec of low loads. Whats the point of having the A380 with its "lower seat-km" when it needs to reduce its fares to get more people to fly? MH should instead stick to the 773ER to replace its 744s for better economics and have a fleet replacement for its aeging A330s with its 80s interiors. Where is MH going to fly its A380s than to LHR n SYD which are the 2 cities that can support it and reducing its non A380 capacity. There must be pure economic reason for the A380 and not for the "feel good factor" which MH and the govt is famous for.

actually MH must be careful in screening the people who wanted or use too much sim time - as a terrorist precaution as not to be used for any unlawful purposes.

Not bec they have no money but bec loads are not there now so no point having the balance delivered earlier - as already SQ will be the largest operator of the A380 by Dec this year with 11 A380s. Also SQ have been getting new A330s and will be getting more next year.

one thing is that Air Asia have been very good at keeping any news reports on its aircraft incidents even in the past. However in this instance, its still unknown whether it is really indeed an air-condtioning problem that resulted in this diversion to KUL instead of proceeding to SIN; or is it a Depressurisation problem - as a loss of pressurisation would be considered a fairly serious incident. one thing is that Air Asia have been very good at keeping any news reports on its aircraft incidents even in the past. However in this instance, its still unknown whether it is really indeed an air-condtioning problem that resulted in this diversion to KUL instead of proceeding to SIN; or is it a Depressurisation problem - as a loss of pressurisation would be considered a fairly serious incident.

anyway SQ A380 have been making numerous training flights to KLIA and touch and go since earlier last year when it got their first few A380s - so the A380 is no stranger to KLIA.

hi KK - like i wrote in the posting - when u are at the LCCT after 830am - there are not many AK #20s - abt maybe 4 to 6 or so - and what u mentioned is at 530am - which I know there the gates are almost full - but once the aircrafts starts taking off at 550am onwards - by in fact 830am - its more of waiting for some of the flights to arrive back at LCCT.

do not really think its just bec of "structural" reasons for AK to posptone delivery of its A320s - as if one were to go to the LCCT daily and one can see from even 8.30am onwards - there's no more than 6 AK 320s on the ground and even at most in between there's abt at most 8 on ground at any one time - so it looks more like AK expansion plans are slowing down albeit the govt's delay in giving the green light for AK to mount new or more flights to destinations. Night parking shouldnt be to much an issue as its additional aircrafts can be parked at further remote bays or outside their hangers; and also AK can overnight some more of its aircrafts at other stations like it does for some.

well sadly here in Malaysia also it doesnt seem that good as with so many reported snatch thefts esp in KL and PJ and few fatalities as a result - maybe no better than guangzhou.

If SIA can post a quarterly loss - then just imagine how bad MAS will be in for as even in good times when SIA makes a hefty profit, MH can lose money and make losses - so I wouldnt be so "glad" that SQ makes only a quarterly loss - as even during the SARS time, altho SQ makes quarterly loss but for its its full year, SQ actually makes good profit; even then BA and Cathay all make profits whilst MH posted losses.

The main reason was that the incoming SQ flight into KLIA sufferred a very heavy landing - and hence the plane was grounded and technical checks need to be made to ensure that the landing gears, wheels and struts are not damaged and the plane is airworthy. Hence the tech and cabin crew had a night stop in KUL and the next morning they were further questioned and make reports - and they left on a later flight the following day.

do not think MH will use its T7s for the KUL-SIN flights as its present load are still within its 734s capacity and with AK's 8 flights daily, and SQ's reduction in using its own planes ie giving most of their routes to its sister airline - Silkair's A320s - MH would be flying less than 50% if it uses its T7s - more likely MH will fly its 738s to SIN.

believed that AA will swap some of its order for A330s to the newer A350s and not 25 A330s and 25 A350s. And AA in near future may have more planes than SIA (of course then more than MH for sure) but in terms of capacity it will still be short of SQ's bec AA main fleet size compromises the much smaller A320s and some perhaps 35 A330s/A350s - whilst SQ fleet compromises of heavy-weights like the 773ERs,and A380s and incl the A333s and future A350s n B787s.

yeah Tony can even fit in AK's A320 seats as came back with him onboard AK705 on fri to SIN and he was seated in row 2D.

- and its apparently bec of fuel leak

yes beilieved that was the Yellowherbie's 777

for a more complete facts on aircraft esp the 777 and A320 - one can refer to ex-MH 777 CPT and his site is very comprehensive as it ocvers almost all issues on flying - its at http://www.askcaptainlim.com/

for those who are interested in Vietnam aviation - may take a read at this blog by a Vietnamese (pilot?) - its more pictorial - still a good site : http://flyingchinaman.blogspot.com/

in reality for those working in KLIA/SQ staff - it been many years that Malaysian Royalties and even Ministers have flown SIA on numerous flights and they can offer any number of reasons if asked - but it can =t be denied that SQ is good airline with renowned inflight service - and being VIPs they can even look forward to being more served.

but in all seriousness, I do doubt that MH needs the A380 as the only pausible money making route is for its SYD-KUL-LHR sectors only and even that MH cannot even fill up its initial 3 times daily flights n had to reduce its frequency. Even given the sc enario when the economy is back on track - the A380 is simply too big for MH except for one of its KUL-LHR flight only.

dont think this is a valid point for free seating - bec if one remembers during the formative yrs of the KUL-SIN MH/SQ Shuttle - it was also free seating - but its bec of the time taken n confusion and seats "reserved" by those who boarded early for their friends or relatives that caused delays and even quarrels amongst the pax.