KK Lee

C-17 is one of the few aircraft that can reverse on its own power (on the ground).

Interesting to note; AK Aug 06 carried 388,518 pax MH Sep 06 carried 455,000 pax ---------- Total 843,518 Assuming MH Aug and Sep figure is similar. KUL Aug 06 domestic pax movement is 774,302. Does it means about 90% of domestic pax pass through KUL? What is the definition of MAB’s ‘Passenger Movement’? Guess it is the sum of outbound and inbound including transit pax i.e. double counting? Else MAB would have built the 2nd satellite terminal by 2005.

Excluding non-optional extras like fuel surcharge, airport tax, etc is misleading. Advertised price should be all inclusive.

I prefer a quiet time in the air than been disturbed by handphone. But I find turning off handphone onboard for the reason that it is affecting aircraft instruments is ignorant.

Found this at http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=740274

I put my bet on blade separation.

Believe the survey mean overall KL (ticket) experience including MH code share.

MH (a 5 star airline) was the only airline serving DXB/EWR but never made any profit. EK (a 4 star airline) is now plying DXB/JFK 3 times daily and MH quit DXB/EWR sector. It just shows how incompetence and unpopular MH is.

There is a air worthiness compliance for airline but not for local LRT or KTM. Hence, local LRT or KTM maintenance record or train driver training can be doubtful. The Star LRT didn’t just hit the buffer but was overhang in the air, so it could be a very serious accident.

MH 772 is Etops 120 min certified, should be safe.

Believe MH is making more than expected money from the fuel surcharge when oil price is dropping. Expect MH to announce a very good (i.e. better than expected) income for 3Q/06, unless they plan to move this profit for later.

The distance from KLIA to KLCC is slightly more than double of from LHR to Central London. That’s why KLIA is not easy to be a popular hub and the Government won’t permit high speed rail to JHB to be built anytime soon.

'Hard Block'= 'Code Share'

MH’s 80’s business model is geared for leisure travelers and the management don’t understand what premium travelers need. No matter how much they upgrade the front cabin, they won’t increase their yield much. Furthermore, political objective is always at priority. Not unlike Soviet system, party representative may has lower rank than Captain but has higher authority. As long as the Government has shares in MH, politicians will always dip their finger in. How much of restructuring have implemented since the new MD is appointed can tell the will of MH to be efficient and productive. We have a better hope to start with another airline.

Guess MAB will be awarding ‘Airline of the Year’ (to MH of course), ‘Best Airport’, ‘Best LCCT’, ‘Airport of the Year’, ‘Best Regional Airport’, ‘Best Terminal’, ‘Best Airport Design’, ‘Best Runway’, ‘Best Taxiway’, ‘Best Eco Friendly Airport’, ‘Best F&B Airport’, etc soon. So every upgraded airports in the country can claim some titles.

Believe there are more people traveling on Eurostar between London and Paris than by flight.

MAB can’t even manage Malaysian airports profitably and efficiently. As there isn’t a shortage of talents in the Middle East e.g. DXB, and Saudi and Jordan are more likely to award contract to BAA; doubt MAB will be successful. Probably this is another ploy to boost MAB stock price.

They are building the airport for the next 100 years. If they don’t build something awesome, money can’t change hand.

Believe for the same destination, SQ ex-KUL fare is cheaper than ex-SIN. Doubt many airline pax will take train to SIN. Express rail will take 50 years and more to return on investment. Typically, Malaysian company made money by building it not operating it. The banks, shareholders (if listed), Government and people will take the burden.

It was true years ago but not lately. Currently, KUL/SIN per km price is among the highest. Because of this high yield, SQ ex-KUL price to other destinations is much higher than MH. Hence, haven’t taken SQ in the last 2 years. To protect Plus highway and MH, and deter pax traveling from SIN; the express rail link to JHB is unlikely to be built anytime soon. From the Proton car experience, the Malaysian Government is very good at finding excuses to delay trade liberation. Hence, until the open sky policy is implemented, one can only speculate.

KUL/SIN is one of the best if not the best yield route for MH. They won’t give up without a fight.

At present, 787 is more advanced than A350. However, as A350 XWB is yet to finalize its design, A350 XWB may leapfrog 787 in due course. Normally, a late comer will incorporate more new technology and has less learning curve but at the penalty of losing market shares initially. What customers like ILFC are asking for is lighter zero fuel weight A350 XWB; i.e. replacing more aluminium alloy with lighter composites in area less prong to damage by ground equipments. Composite is already widely use inside fuselage e.g. pax floor, partition wall, etc. Fuselage is only a tube. Number of seats across EY section is determine by airline. If A350 XWB is fitted 2-4-2, then the EY seats will be the widest in its class. But if is fitted with 3-3-3 or 2-5-2, then many over weight pax won’t feel comfortable traveling in it. MH A333 is less equipped than B772. Hence, many pax feel A333 is an inferior aircraft than B772. However, for those who have traveled on A345 will find it is more pleasant than B772 especially the toilet.

Compared with Boeing or Airbus, it is reported that Soviet plane consumed twice as much as fuel e.g. 6 tons per hour for TU154 vs 3 tons per hour for 757.

Our Balinese client was joking to us; Since Malaysia exported terrorist to Indonesia; in reciprocating, they are exporting smog back to us. Guess that is the other side of the coin.

I don’t mind to travel on any airline or airplane (even TU134, Tu154), as long as it is safe, convenient and value for money. For good food, I go to restaurant not airline. Hence, I don’t mind sandwiches, salad during flight. However, when an airline is charging sustainable more than others, I expect value for money. Again, when a airline is claiming 5 stars rating, I expect 5 stars foods, entertainment, seat and services on board. If using MH as a benchmark; SQ, EK and CX are better in food, entertainment and seats. MH cabin crews are most friendly. The quality of food served on MH now a day is comparable to VN and HY. Hence, believe MH shouldn’t advertise itself a 5 stars airline, especially it will create high expectation that MH can’t match. Just my 2 cents