Chris Tan

Thankfully for MAB the online community is teeming with expertise on how to run an airline.

By working with them to meet their requirements, do you mean bending over backwards to meet their demands? Because I don't remember seeing Changi build an LCCT because TF threw a tantrum. Or remove the aerobridges at T4 because they're deemed an unnecessary luxury. Do those governments entertain AirAsia's demands for lower PSC/taxes just because they're low-cost? If anything, this goes to show that MAHB is willing to even entertain AirAsia's nonsense. They know that going around kicking up a fuss in public isn't going to gain any traction in other countries.

And if you put any thought into the article instead of taking it face value you might find that it’s an awfully convenient excuse to cut excess capacity. Let’s not be so naive, shall we? KUL is hardly bursting at the seams. As pointed out by others, KUL isn’t in desperate need of a 3-runway operation quite yet.

DXB only has two runways and it’s much busier than KUL. Closing one runway has a tremendous impact on operations, so of course they’d have to rush the repairs. EK had to trim a significant chunk of flights when DXB was on one runway ops. Do you see the AK group shelving a third of its flights because KUL is down to 2 runways?

I’m quite glad the people in power don’t advocate for lower wages in their pursuit of raising the average income. One of those “reasons” which were not elaborated on in your post can be found just two posts up. Many leisure travellers aren’t willing to pony up for the convenience of a direct flight. You want convenience, you pay for it. Clearly MH knows they can get away with charging higher prices for ex-KUL, the same way SQ/CX charge exorbitant prices out of SIN/HKG. I don’t see how MH is in a different position compared to other airlines here. Direct flights are convenient, and convenience doesn’t come cheap. It’s a worldwide trend that MH would be foolish to buck. If they’re going to have any hope of getting half-decent yields (which many here have been advocating for), slashing prices to please a price-sensitive bunch probably isn’t the best strategy, is it? Some might praise CX/KA for being so affordable out of KUL but conveniently forget the reason behind CX’s withdrawal from KUL. And it seems like they’re also blithely unaware of how insane CX’s pricing is out of HKG. Because CX can, just like how MH can rightfully command a premium out of KUL.

Aspire to lead the race to the bottom in terms of passenger experience? Like pioneering Basic Economy, completely gutting the value of its FFP, lobbying for the ME3 to stay out of the US, etc?

Unless you’re telling me the Immigration Department of Malaysia is subservient to Mavcom, I just don’t see how this is the latter’s problem. Sure, it’d be great if all the stakeholders can get together to fix every issue faced by passengers, but let’s get real. There’s plenty of praise for consumer rights in the West, but the reality is you’d be hard pressed to claim under EU261/2004 if you misconnect because of immigration queues. In the US, you think the DOT is going to fight the DHS over 2-3hr queues at LAX? What next? Is Mavcom going to fine that company whose lorry broke down in the middle of the NKVE resulting in missed flights? Or take Indonesia to the ICJ because their haze grounds flights in Malaysia?

From a pure passenger experience standpoint I’m sure anyone would prefer a Changi T3 over a conventional terminal.

Or maybe MH just couldn’t get a better slot. Why would the bean counters want to rush the A330 back to KUL by 4am? To prepare for a pre-dawn departure to an imaginary high-yield destination?

1:05 turnaround for a 333 isn’t unheard of. Off the top of my head: KA’s turnaround at KUL is as little as 1hr. MH’s other 4am arrivals seem to be caused by curfews (MH71/140 from NRT/SYD), so I’m guessing they don’t voluntarily schedule such an early arrival :p

Because airlines like SQ scramble to downgrade their CGK flights from 773s to AT72/Q400s in a downturn?

In the 90s you wouldn't have found bargain basement fares that many take for granted today.

If more nights = higher quality tourists then we should be attracting more begpackers to max out their 90-day social visit passes.

Not to some people, clearly. If visitors from neighbouring countries don't count as tourists, then countries like the US have failed spectacularly on the tourism front. Just look at the number of Canadian/Mexican travellers they get each year! I personally think arbitrarily citing statistics without any real analysis (or logic) is more "syok sendiri" than engaging in a proper debate.

Have you?