jit

Unless there's a govt guarantee, which is likely. In which case if the company goes under again it'll be the good ol' taxpayers coming to the rescue.. Seems like a group of people who was active in the aviation industry 20 years ago. Lots have changed in the last 20 years.. growth of LCCs, airline deregulation, e-commerce just to name a few. The team does not instill confidence in me.. but as long as taxpayer's money is not used to bail them out in the future, I am okay with it. Wish them all the best..

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/02/03/coronavirus-special-aircraft-to-bring-home-malaysians-from-wuhan-has-left-f/1834100 Bravo to the AirAsia crew, risking exposure to the virus and sacrificing oneself to 14 days of quarantine... for the sake of bringing home our fellow Malaysians! Couldn't help wondering what happened to MH? Shouldn't these 'national service' flights be operated by our national airline? Especially so when billions of taxpayers money have been sucked into this company.

It is confusing because the naming convention for KLIA is non standard. Most major airports name their terminals 1, 2, 3.. or A, B, C.. whereas KLIA is not KLIA Terminal 1, it is KLIA, with a Main terminal and a satellite terminal. And KLIA2 is not terminal 2.. It is not confusing to us because we are used to it.. for a first time visitor I think is can be rather confusing.. more so if he's well traveled and are used to naming conventions at other major airports.

This report shows what a big mess MH is in. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/01/22/report-malaysia-airlines-needs-rm21b-to-continue-operations/1830575 MH really is in no position to choose its suitors.. no matter how much one hates TF and AK, theirs may be the only viable proposal. JAL's 25% not going to make any difference. Air France/KLM is getting out. The management, staff and union should just swallow their ego and pride and accept whatever that's on the table. They screwed up... we cannot keep pumping in taxpayers money into MH.. it is a lot of money.

Interesting discussion. Please be reminded that MH is still bleeding cash to a tune of almost a billion ringgit a year. In other words, it is running on negative cash flow. If you are an investor, why would you want to invest into MH? 1) to enter the Malaysian market? Malaysia is not a big market by any measure. More so the premium market. A large portion of the market is low cost, and the low cost market is dominated by AirAsia. And currently the premium market is dominated by the middle eastern carriers. And one does not need to buy into MH to enter the malaysian market, we generally have an open sky policy with regard to foreign carriers flying into KUL. 2) Its assets? MH have been completely stripped apart and rid of whatever assets it had over the years. Name me one valuable asset MH has. Perhaps the LHR slots.. that's about it. 3) Its MRO facility? Yes, perhaps years ago. Over the last few years it had been stripped and downsized. Huge amount of dollars is required to get it to what it was years ago. 4) its branding? Don't think so.. its branding is still damaged from the twin disasters. It has not fully recovered since. 5) As a spring board to fly into other markets?.. perhaps years ago Lion had that plan with Batik Malaysia. Now, with CAAM being downgraded to Category 2, I doubt this is a sensible thing to do. MH is still carrying an enormous amount of 'baggage' .. the A380s is one of them. Nobody wants them. Govt intervention.. the last thing a private enterprise wants is govt meddling into their business. And I doubt the ridiculous contracts that were signed previously has all been cleaned up. So, can someone think of one good reason to invest into MH? We are talking billions of dollars here.. the accusations that the proposals so far is predatory in nature is uncalled for. This is business, not charity. AirAsia is perhaps the only one that gets to gain.. by ridding of a competitor. For JAL and Air France KLM, can't see what is in it for them.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/12/04/malaysia-to-send-protest-note-to-singapore-over-seletar-airport-la

Completely agree.. wouldn't give CM that much credit. And let's not forget the RM6b that have been poured into this entity.. not many CEOs have RM6b at their disposal to turn around a company.. yet he has the cheek to complain about not having a level playing field!! Also, take note that SQ and CX have recorded amazing profits despite having to bear fuel hedging costs.. which MAB being a new entity wouldn't have to carry.

Do agree that sometimes a little may just tip the balance .. the airline business is an unforgiving business. If they can't handle these little extras and problems it's best they stay out. As it is, Rayani have shown they are just not ready for the challenge. When things go wrong in a communication company, or a bank, or a TV station, what would likely result at most is some inconvenience to its customers. When things go wrong in a flight people's lives may be at stake. We cannot take for granted the safety that we are now enjoying. All these frivolous businessmen hoping to be lucky needs to be filtered out of this industry. I have no pity for Rayani. And I do hope the public and the authorities do not tolerate this nonsense in this industry. Won't wish them any luck.

quoting from thestar; “Similarly, flights to East Malaysia, a high-frequency route, will cost airlines more from a mere RM160-RM176 for 800 nautical miles now for the KL-to-Kota Kinabalu route to RM1,600-RM1,760 when the new charges come into effect, although it depends on aircraft type and frequency,” said an airline executive. RM1700/120 pax = RM14.16 About 70% load factor is realistic, no?

Nobody likes price increases.. but just to put things in perspective, a KUL to Sabah/Sarawak flight will cost extra of about RM15 per passenger. A peninsular flight about RM3-RM5 per passenger. And it's likely that these charges will be passed on to the passengers anyway. As a comparison, we pay 10 times more on toll charges on the NSE. Don't think the new DCA charges will kill off the airlines.. if Rayani can't heck it, best they stay out. Running an airline isn't easy, it's a high cost, capital intensive business and extremely competitive.

Yes, I do agree that Malaysian culture is a contributing factor here.. however, not every management accepts this culture.. and I gave examples of shopping malls which are frequented by middle class Malaysians.. not just Suria. And the point here is we are discussing Malaysia Airlines, a FCC which were rated 5 stars.. why should we compare MH with a mamak restaurant? And this topic is about MH aircraft not being maintained well and about its cleaners not doing a good job.. not about MH passengers being messy.

Don't think this is a culture or Malaysian thing... look around some of the better managed shopping malls e.g. Sunway, Mid Valley, Suria.. Do you see this lackadaisical maintenance culture? Or some of the better managed hotels.. you can see the quality and standards are maintained. The problem is just bad management..

Also, the MD that signed the 25 year contract with Brahim's... He got promoted to become chairman!

Do agree that MH is overstaffed to a certain extent, however by using a comparison with SQ and CX may not be accurate as those two airlines does not have a domestic network to maintain. eg, SQ's ground handling is handled by SATS and as such those staff nos are not included into SQ's headcount. Most overseas stations are handled by third party ground handlers.. In MH's case, staff need to be employed to man local stations .. and we have many. One possible solution would be for MH to create a separate entity for ground services.. however that would be merely transferring these employees from one entity to another,.. under the same group. Not sure how much they can save from that except to make the headcount figures look better. Another point is narrow body aircraft operate multiple sectors per day whereas wide bodies normally average 2/3 sectors max. An aircraft that operates 8 sectors KUL/PEN/KUL would definitely require more manpower than say a flight from SIN to LON/ HKG to FRA. I think MH's problems are not that simple .. it goes far beyond the company itself. All Malaysian GLC's suffer the same problems, only that most of these GLCs are protected some what due to a monopolised market, or due to huge govt procurement contracts.. As for MH, it is probably the only GLC that is competing with the rest of the world on an equal basis... Shutting down the company and starting anew will not solve the problem, if the rest of the country is still 'business as usual'. The root issues have to be addressed first.. My 2 sen...

I did mention before that MH current route network requires the 777s only for AMS and FRA.. The rest eg NRT LAX AKL IST can be served by the 330s. By getting 'a few more' 380s they will be able to retire their last 'old' aircraft, the 777s by 2015 .. And to cover some payload / range restrictions on the 330s the remaining options can be converted to the 242t 330s. The company can then have some breathing space to look forward to the next gen aircraft like the 777x / 787 / 350s which could only be delivered 5-8 years time... Which would be a good time to replace the 330s which would by then be aging..

Based on MH's current network, it looks like the 772s are really needed only for AMS and FRA. AKL and LAX can be served with the 333s with a little payload restrictions. So, would it then be a good idea for MH to buy another 2 or 3 A380s for AMS/FRA and convert the remaining 333 options to the 333HGWs for AKL,LAX,JED,IST?

The orders will probably spread over 10 to 15 years.. starting in a few years time. That'll be about 10 to 20 narrowbody aircraft per year which is not so mind boggling. Thus deliveries in the second part will likely be replacement aircraft for its existing and those delivered in the first 5 years. By making huge orders they not only get big discounts, they also get to lock in future purchases at today's prices. As for financing, they only need to source for it when the aircraft are due to be delivered. This approach is done by LCCs as their operation covers a range of up to 4 hours which can be served by a single aircraft type. And by doing so they keep their costs down. Think Lion's order from Airbus instead of Boeing is to ensure that they are not completely dependent on one company which may prove to be a handicap in future negotiations.

Well, India probably started improving after the women insisted on 'no loo, no 'I do'... http://www.newser.com/story/71434/in-rural-india-mr-right-must-have-a-toilet.html

How? Those that signed that contract got a promotion... That's the catering contract.. wonder how's the other big ticket contracts.. e.g. aircraft leasing contracts that runs into billions??

Thought they made some huge provision (loses) on the last quarter 2011 results due to end of lease aircrafts? Now they are showing gains!! Some creative accounting here if you ask me!

Maybe if he's buying 150 aircraft, Airbus may consider... I doubt Airbus would develop a variant that is due to be replaced in 3 years by the A350. Unless they're anticipating a huge delay in the A350 program. The demand for a longer range A330-300 is too small.. most airlines that want it have already bought the A350s or the 787s.

Agreed. Wonder if they really understand the pros and cons of different aircraft types... Reduce CASK by 20%? Which means a CASK of about 20sen. That is about close to a LCC CASK. SQ and CX's CASK around 30sen. Increase revenue RASK by 10%? That'll be around 20sen. SQ,CX,EK's RASK all above 30sen. Would'nt it make more 'sens' to work harder to increase RASK by 30% and keeping CASK to within 10%? Really makes me wonder if these bunch of guys know what they are talking about...

quote They also want the maintenance contract with AirAsia at US$33 an hour reviewed because the norm that MAS charges is US$46 per hour while the industry rate is US$80 to US$85 per hour. Wow!!.. no wonder the staff are pissed!!... Billions of ringgit and millions of man hours were spent to built up MH's engineering facility over the last 50+ years, and someone just walks in and uses its facility and pays peanuts!!! Well, looks like more of this one sided deal contracts are slowly leaking out!!

@Ruiz... Don't get angry.. this is just for discussion sake.. @Flee 1) Highly debatable. Carrying AAX pax during the approaching peak summer season may be counter productive.. there may be huge opportunity lost by filling up seats with cheap pax during peak season. 75% load factors are average over a year.. load factors are closer to 90% during these times. 2) Management strenghtened? I can't see how AA management is superior to MH. Eg: Engineering head from AA? MH Engineering is far superior to AA which has zero experience in heavy maintenance.. zero experience with Boeings. 3) Firefly is MH's low cost arm.. in other words, it is to compete with AA.. after the same pie. Only AA is losing market share in this sector. 4) Surabaya, Bandung losing money? Even JNB can make money if managed correctly.. it is the only gateway to the African continent! All in the know will acknowledge that capacity and network cuts affect connectivity and revenue in the long term. Bad management IMO. 5) MH's MRO is doing fine without AA..

Well, lots of report about how MH stand to lose from this reversal and TF coming on video to say his piece...(seems like Air Asia's PR dept is on hyperdrive!!) But can somebody list down 3 things that MH had benefited from the share swap? I can't think of any... but I can think of a least 6 that have benefited Air Asia..