Chris Tan

It also didn't need to shoulder the burden of being the flag carrier of Malaysia. KL-London not working out as planned? Just drop it. Not seeing eye to eye with MAHB? I'll just collect whatever taxes I damn please.

These airlines were also sold to foreign companies. Malaysians raised a stink when the first foreign CEO was hired. Just imagine if the new airline were to be sold off to another country (which would more likely than not be China).

And along the way, ruining the fantasy of watching KUL grow into an aviation hub that rivals the likes of SIN or BKK

Speak for yourself. It’s evident that most people here aren’t naïve enough to believe that. What some people are saying is that there are other GLCs that bleed taxpayers’ money, but don’t offer the same opportunities to benefit from.

So essentially, what you are saying is that you are perfectly happy paying more for your airfare as a result of less competition? And you are conveniently forgetting that MAS was not profitable even before OD existed. By stopping OD from being established, not only would we have our tax money being pumped into MH, but also lose out from less competition.

Wow. I have not seen SQ108/109 operate for a decade or so. Looks like a regional A359 operating, for those interested.

MI is temporarily withdrawing its Max 8 fleet from service

CX transferred KUL to its full-service regional wing. How is this similar to JL and its new LCC?

...from SIN

KA is not an LCC.

Again, I can't think of an airline that doesn't want to minimise its CASK and maximise its yield - LCC or otherwise. CX, with 130 widebodies that fly nonstop to 5 continents from a base with a huge market, is big enough to justify a regional brand. Take away MH's narrowbody fleet and what are you left with? And if the MI/SQ model was so successful why would they merge the two under the SQ brand? If MH were to become another SQ, I could brag about my national carrier to the world. But then I'd be speaking from hours of reading trip reports and travel blogs rather than firsthand experience.

Which airline doesn't want to be as low-cost, low-CASK, full-service and high-fare as possible? If you integrate FY into MH's network to serve as a feeder airline, its cost base will be inherently higher than a true low-cost airline. Throw in "service excellence", and you can forget about reasonable prices if you want to be profitable. And you'd be turning away potential MH customers (especially OW loyalists) who would rather not be on an LCC on the regional connection.

Yes, but surely the members here would have their own ideas/suggestions?

I find MH's value proposition to be excellent. No, it doesn't have the most luxurious product around, but shop around enough and you'll find prices that rival Y on more "profitable" airlines. SQ is a great airline, for sure. The pride of Singapore, the envy of Malaysians. Unfortunately, I can't afford SQ, but I can afford MH J. I know which one I'd choose in a heartbeat. And to those who say they'd much rather fly TG over MH to BKK because they offer a more luxurious experience in Y on widebodies - take a look at their recent financial performance. You're essentially benefiting from the misfortune of Thai taxpayers. Notice a pattern?

Believe me when I say that is far from the truth

Easy. MYY can be the TPAC gateway; SBW can focus on AU/NZ; BTU shall be the O&G hub (nonstops to YYC, IAH, GIG and the Middle East with conveniently timed connections to the oil rigs and KL Simpang airport for Petronas businessmen); MYY can be the island hopper hub, and KCH can focus on the super high yield flights to the financial centres of the world (HKG, HND/NRT, SIN, LHR, EWR/JFK etc)

I do not fly as often as some people but in the dozen or so times I have passed through KLIA so far this year, not once did T1 feel much different than T2. T1 has a rickety aerotrain (which is more of a disgrace than a convenience) and a mini patch of rainforest in the middle of the Satellite. Do those luxuries make it a better terminal?

Which is?

And as proven by Sir TF, KCH really isn't as big a deal as some people seem to think. You think AK won't jump at the opportunity to turn an airport into its hub if the potential was there? And it'll be up against HKG/ICN/NRT/HND/PEK/PVG/XMN/CAN/TAO/HGH/NKG/XMN/TPE/BKK/SIN/KUL/SGN.

AirAsia seems to think they're in a position to demand lower charges just because they operate out of KUL T2, while still getting the same basic services as everyone else at KUL.

While it might be true that MAHB is far from perfect, it's not like KLIA T1 is run any differently from T2. That certainly doesn't justify TF's demands for preferential treatment.

SIN, DXB and HKG are significant markets in their own right. They might be major transit hubs but the majority of passengers are actually O&D. Changi and SQ, which are looked upon with envy and fascination by many here, would not have thrived if it weren't for Singapore's position as a major financial hub. Connecting traffic might sound lucrative but in reality it only supplements O&D traffic, where the real money is. The idea that you can just build a huge airport in an insignificant city and grow a world-class airline that connects the world is nothing more than a fantasy. Unless, of course, you're DOH. But then again, QR's mission isn't to make money, to put it very mildly. They have the backing of the Qatari government and its very deep pockets to sustain such a business model. Does Sarawak have that luxury?

You know what they say about hindsight...

Was the girl somehow related to Josh..?

...as long as your flight does not arrive after a wave of A380/77Ws...