jit

An interesting viewpoint.. I was also quite open to the CCF and could see enormous benefits to both airlines with the collaboration.. Unfortunately, the actions the last 10 months seems to benefit one party over the other. TF coming in to save MH? Well, he had 10 months to prove himself, .. and after all that has happened I can only conclude that he's just a typical businessman with a lot of bull.. For those who still believe that TF was in MH to save MH.. well I rest my case!

Maybe they're losing billions because everyone has been busy counting beans instead of doing business? All great companies are great because of its awesome products or services.. and if you noticed, rarely talk about its costs...

comparing the A380 to the 747-4 is like comparing a hybrid car to a 80s volvo.. the 747-4 was built in the early 80s derived from a design from the 60s! The comparison here is between the 380s with the new 747-8 Fuel efficiency data between the A380 vs the 747-800 is still debatable...

Unfortunately the 747-8 had been overshadowed by the sales success of its smaller siblings and the hype of the 380s. It would have fitted very well to a lot of airlines' needs. Operating the 380s would have needed a 777 or equivalent to supplement its operations... with the 747, some airlines could've done with a single airplane type instead of having a few 380s and a few 777s. What more, some airlines also operate 747Fs.. the cost savings from operating a single type of aircraft would have been enormous. Airlines couldn't have been able to recouped the additional costs of introducing a brand new aircraft type as compared to the lesser cost of introducing a derivative. The 380s are also restricted by the number of airports it can go to, whereas the 747-8 can practically operate in any airport that the 747-4 currently operates. Hope the 747-8 survives.. still thinks it looks far better than the dugongs and it carries with it a lot of nostalgia..

Just to highlight a point especially to those who are calling for cost cuts and headcount reduction. Revenue ASK Cost ASK MH : 20.0. 25.6 TG : 26.1. 25.0 EK : 29.4. 28.5 SQ : 31.8. 29.5 CX : 32.3. 30.5 MH is cost competitive. Cost is NOT the problem. It is revenue. No of staff per aircraft seat SQ : 0.50 CX : 0.43 MH : 0.77 At a glance, MH is way over staffed. But.. Monthly wages SQ : rm5251 CX : rm5991 MH : rm1228 MH is overstaffed by <2 but CX and SQ have to pay their staff 4.2 tp 4.8 times more than MH! And do remember that MH operates lots more narrow body aircraft which will result in a higher no of staff per seat. Although staff productivity needs to be increased, staff costs / nos per se is not the problem. Reducing capacity may seem like the right thing to do... but this is an airline, not a car company. Reducing frequency and cutting routes affect revenue directly. Is MH's revenue so ridiculously low because they don't have the network and freq? I would'nt choose to fly to the US using MH.. with only 3x / week freq. So, it is a bit tricky.. how to boost revenue and control costs?Not easy.. That is why they need ppl who understand the airline business to run it! Ppl who know the business well, who understands the intricasies of managing the network and selling seats with prices that fluctuate by the day...Not parachute a bunch of bean counters, oil man, power plant man to run it... using consultants who are generally also a bunch of bean counters.

1) Sell off Subang property to make $$? 2) Reduce head count without VSS $$? 3) Less office space reduce $$ 4) New Management = New Office?

sacked??.. if you read properly, I think those 'rotten apples' probably got a promotion!!

Nothing wrong with spending money on branding and marketing.. but have to agree with the analysts that the timing of the deal is just really bad!! MH have just announced enormous losses, the CEO have not been announced yet (after almost a month??) and the direction of the company is still vague especially with regard to Firefly and Sapphire. The 20000 staff is still obviously in the dark about this whole thing and the first big news since the take over is?? Now is this not really bad management to begin with? What more the major shareholder of QPR is TF? Don't know regarding the regulatory aspect of it all, but the moral, ethical aspect is just wrong in the eyes of the public. Now it is revealed that MH is paying more for the deal compared to AA... wow!! What a complete PR blunder!! First impressions of the 'new' management is crucial in boosting staff morale.. it seems these 'new' guys have boobooed an opportunity to do so.. instead they have sent a wrong signal to the staff of MH that this whole share swap deal were to benefit AA and not MH.

from his cv, a true blue bn man... looks like our govt is still not comfortable letting someone outside the 'circle' to helm MH. Not expecting any earth shattering changes from him..

Even if MAS is allowed to shut down and a new airline started from scratch, it will not solve the core problem.. In many ways, MAS is just a reflection of what is wrong with Malaysia. Many GLCs get away with incompetency simply because they monopolize the economy in Malaysia.. can you name one GLC which is doing well and is competing on an equal footing in the global open economy? Malaysian banks that are reporting hefty profits are protected in many ways..eg.. foreign banks are even limited by the number of ATMs they are allowed to operate!! MAS is perhaps the only GLC that has to compete on an equal footing with the rest of the world...

MH to benefit more from the deal?? Really I can't see what MH can benefit from except some management expertise.. even then that may not be completely correct. All I see is AK/TF getting all the benefits from this.. control over route network.. taking over of highly lucrative routes...eg SYD effectively killing off the competition (FY) ability to transfer the many airbuses he ordered.. access to MH's MRO business.. (AK's MRO business is almost non existent) monopoly over Malaysia's aviation sector. All without a single sen from his pocket...

Let's face it... MH's per capita wages are half if not less than half of SQ's or CX's.. looking at it at another angle, MH can afford to have 2 person doing a person's job without putting much pressure on its P & L. So the big hu ha being overstaffed is not the biggest problem in MH, .. Rather I view it to be Mis direction of the company.. being too busy competing with AK, and in the process being viewed as a LCC. Remember 5 star LCC cost? 5 star value carrier? We were the first full service carrier going zero fare until somebody realised the blunder.. Any of you remember any publicity on MH's First & Business a few years ago? MH were promoting its free baggage, aerobridge..etc..even its ads look ridiculously close to that of AK! So is it any wonder that MH lost most of its premium passengers which brings higher margins whereas they try to fill up the EY which is low in margins and is price sensitive. Selling an extra first class seat per flight would have paid the wages for one staff for the entire year!! Slow in fleet renewal.. had they renewed its A330 fleet earlier, they could have used it for all its network which is less than 8 hours instead of the 777 which burns more fuel. Now they are using the 777 on all these routes just because it had better IFE.. imagine the hundreds of millions of fuel that could've been saved! Cancelling routes/ reducing frequency.. with all the routes cancelled, where are they going to get passengers to feed their profitable routes? Iam sure SQ and CX does not make money on all their routes.. that is why they can still use the aging 747s yet make money. I believe these routes are used to carry passengers to feed its other profittable routes. KUL is not a hub, our local economy is not big, not many people fly to KL as a final destination.. that is why they need to maintain a certain network and freq to maintain its revenue. Bad fuel hedging policy? They can blame on the rest of the industry and what not, but the fact is it has cost the company lots of money. Granted, most of the problems in MH is inherited from the past from bad management decisions since the 90's.. the staff is not entirely to be blamed, rather I am of the opinion that MH is where it is now because the Captain and his co pilots steered the ship to a wrong path. The other crew were just doing their job keeping the ship moving. The ground staff need to be motivated, they need to be told what to do, they need to be coached, mentored, and it is the middle management that needs to improve on their human management skills. On the other hand, MH seems to be going in the right direction now with its emphasis on its the front end customers.. but they must remember, going the right direction is one.. the speed at which you travel is another. If MH is travelling at 50km/h whilst SQ and CX are travelling faster, they will still be caught behind. All the best to MH, do hope they get it right this time..

Finally!! Now wondering if there's going to be some realignment to MH's european hubs..