filipeseda

If you read it carefully, it's utilising Bombardier CRJ aircraft. This suggests that it is probably super 'atas', small volume sort to say, beyond the league of MH. Furthermore, it is operating out of Subang, which again points to its role as such. Perhaps more of an alternative to private jet travel.

Don't vote BN, who to vote? PAP lol....

Indeed we do. But whether it really happens remains to be seen.

Well, in terms of long-haul products...NO! In terms of medium haul/regional....NO! In terms of short haul, perhaps, cos I've got peanuts for a 45 min hop =)

Skytrax is probably the most realiable at of all of these "rating" agencies. It gives a FAIRLY accurate account. Of course, except for MH that is. Really! Are you kidding me?? Sorry, I beg to differ. Their premium long-haul product, though on par a couple of years ago, is no match for is slipping behind the competition. It's not just J that matters. After all, a good chunk of MH experiences are in Y where I have to say, too much has been chopped away and again, seats that I can only associate with dreadful US legacy carriers. Yes, please give me an earful on service standards. Really, for a non-Malaysian, I feel no different than on TG or SQ, where I've got a newer product altogether, with I on par or well slightly below par service standards with MH. MAS a 5-star carrier? Used to be. Now? Not really, it's more of a 4 star. MH needs to stop using its service as a scapegoat for its tired fleet, outdated hardware and of course its mundane choice of new products. MH, be a business. Do the right things. If it means cutting back on labour and increasing productivity. POTONG! And stop being lulled into price wars. Be a business, product proliferation and complexity reign supreme in your oligopolisitic market. BE A BUSINESS! Oh wait ade pemerintah...sigh

All in the name of cost-cutting

Just came off my mind. If MH wants to sustain twice daily A380 services to LHR, what about making one of the runs a LHR-JFK run, making the route KUL-LHR-JFK. After all, this would help feed both BAs and AAs networks in LHR and JFK respectively, both of which are OW members. If I am not mistaken, there are in fact fifth freedom routes between the UK and US. S'pore signed an open skies agreement with the UK govt, allowing SQ to fly anywhere from the UK.

This may be a good thing for MAS actually. It'll finally make them realise of their shortcomings and hopefully incentivise them towards a true 5-star status comparable with the likes of other carriers.

What about economic sanctions in Zimbabwe?

Fabulous... Just curious, I know the concorde is currently on display in NY beside the Hudson, what's actually happened to the rest, because from what I remembered is that they were gotten rid of in 2003. I also understand that there's another in a Mueseum outside London, which I cannot recall off my head, is that the one they're using in the film?

How likely is it that MH will actually drastically change the A380 product? My guess is that it'll most likely strip away economy class seats to make way for more business class. Sorry, but I am still VERY pessimistic towards MH, they just NEVER get their onboard products right can they?

Let us not forget that at the end of the day, the visions of both countries are the same, i.e. to achieve a developed status (don't need the details on that). Singapore has achieved that where as Malaysia has not, though it is inching towards and has made much progress since 57'. Personally, I believe Malaysia simply suffers from incompetent leadership and a political and economic system that desperately needs to be relieved of its corruption, cronies and datuks. Malaysia can prosper. On paper, if we were to take bets 30 years ago, I'm sure many would've thought otherwise. You have a point there.

CX can sustain a variety of daily flights as I would assume that it can sustain terminating passengers in HKG as well. MAS will probably rely on connecting passengers to fill its SYD route. It's more economical just to have one gigantic load of passengers in the case of MH. I would assume that MH will probably operate a daily A380 to SYD with a 3-5 weekly B772 accompanying the A380 service. Sorry. That was typo error.

6 is a good number given that MH will probably operate daily to LHR, AMS and SYD. After all SQ has 5 A350s for its direct LAX and EWR routes.

I suppose the concern of MH is essentially in providing lounge acess worldwide. Currently, MH relies on other, mostly non-OW carriers for lounge acess apart from a handful overseas MH lounges in LHR, SYD, HKG, SIN and various other airports. (Pardon me for my ignorance)

The problem with MAS is really a combination of many factors that makes it a hugely unprofitable entity: a) Overbloated management and loads of corporate wastage Ageing fleet in comparison with the like of SQ and CX c) Outdated products and even outdated supposed "newer" products d) The lack of an alliance for all these years e) All these years it spent at trying to compete with AK where it's cost cutting frenzies and five-star value carrier sentiments Simply, the problem with MAS is incompetence. Even though Idris Jala did "transform the company", he did nothing to change its fundamentals and instead just cleaned up the books. He set out on this low-cost value carrier which really took a tole on the airline as seen with its inferior hardware. He caused passengers to suffer not the people at the desk who were useless. MH is in a unique position. If it wants sucess, it has to be willing to compete with the big boys and not shy away and say I'm serving this market which is neither premium nor LCC. Even Tengku Azmil made the same mistake by insisting that MH should not become an SQ. In the SEAsian market if you're not even a TG, I don't know what to say.

Quote from the ST 10/8 "AK can learn of the experience of MAS and MAS can learn of the cost-cutting measures of AK"-- Mahatir Do I have to say more.

This is in contrast with the ailing carrier up north.

Oil is now below US$78 a barrel. Good news for MAS! Well, perhaps it's in part due to the poor leadership that MAS has gone through for ages and they see a rather talented airline CEO, and for the government to get its hands on AK for something called "duit"

Both the A330s and B734s are owned by MH. Only the A332s, B772s and B747s are owned by PMB. MH can pull strings at PMB. I'm sure. FOR ONCE! I doubt so. MH will still maintain its domestic serives, but will probably scale down its frequencies or focues on major routes namely those to PEN, BKI and KCH. International routes are still a big "?"

With sky-rocketing fuel prices, the 90s techonology of the B772s will prove rather detremental to MHs profitability. It's already been reported that MH is battling high operating costs in part because of its ageing fleet. MH should not fall into the same trap that it's in now. Insisting on keeping an ageing fleet to save costs, will only end up with higher costs in the future. The B787s and A350s have promised greater fuel efficiency, greater reliability and lower maintenance. I'm sure all of us now that for any business to suceed, you need to take calculated risks. To sit on an ageing fleet and wait for an aircraft to "prove itself" is just ameuterish at best. Mind you, LH and AF will eventually be phasing out their A343s. Again, to make such calculations you need a strong team of fleet experts, etc. to ensure that airlines make wise choices. All the airlines you've listed are also seeking replacement for such aircraft. Yes, some of the B772s are still relatively new. The youngest being 7 years of age, not 5-6 years. MH is a money losing entity in part because of its ageing fleet. For some reason despite having a total 10 new aircraft within its fleet, MH has yet to retire any of its existing fleet. It could easily retire 5-6 of their older A333 fleet and a couple of their B734s, saving MH on fuel and maintenance. MH could have sold off those planes to third world carriers, and make a good buck out of it. Instead, MH has used its new aircraft to introduce new routes, in particular from BKI. Essentially, the new aircraft have not done a dent in promoting cost savings, and have only added on to MHs bills. I am for refurbishing the B772 but don't keep them for another 10 years. Technically, an aircraft is designed to be good for 25 years, but doing that means exposing yourself to greater operating costs. The sucess of SQ is in part because of its young fleet A replacement needs to be found NOW! If not MH will find itself scrambling to compete with other carriers already flying MUCH MORE reliable and efficient B787s and A359s. If I were to take over MHs fleet planning here's what I would do: a) Start the gradual retirment of B734s and A333s by putting them up for sale Refurbish the newest B772s (9 of them delivered after 1999) with updated AVOD in Y and new J-class seats, to be deployed on long-haul routes to AKL, IST, FCO, CDG, FRA, LAX-TPE, JNB & LHR c) Negotiate for more A330s (MH still has the option for an additional 10 A330s) to replace the older B772s (EDA: 2015) and purchase the A350 or B787s for the longer-haul B772s (EDA: 2017-2018) d) Retire all older B772s by 2015 and the complete B772 fleet by 2019. e) Use the money generated from the sale of old aircraft to finance the B772 fleet renewal.

You see that's the thing. Ideally, MH should be a premium carrier and FY a low-cost subsidary and everything should work out. However, MH has pretty much failed to promote itself as a premium carrier and neither has it tried enticing passengers on its premium routes.

FY in the first place was a bad decision. FY has canabalised MHs domestic sectors. After all, MH has tried to paint itself as a low-cost five star carrier. So what's FY suppose to be? Low-cost regional 3-star? Also, the SEA market is already saturated with a number of LCCs. FY has only canabolised MHs domestic operations. The right recipe for MH is to see itself as a premier airline. Not a TOYOTA! MH you're a Lexus. SQ is Mercedes. It's that sort've price difference you're looking at. Both are equally comparable but the Lexus is slightly cheaper. AK on the other hand has always been clear about its market and has gone out of the way to grow its market. MH seems to adopt a neither here nor there strategy. Worst still, it has done litte to its fundamentals. It still has an unproductive and enormous labour force, an ageing fleet and has been on this cost-cutting frenzy that's taken them out of the top 10 skytrax carriers list. With AK at the reigns, I hope they'll talk some sense into the MH management. The 772s should be retired. They'll eventually become time machines themselves. MH needs to find a replacement for them ASAP if it wants to compete or it should refurbish them before the arrival of their new wide body fleet.

Sure got some governmnet official who is being sibuk-sibuk to save his ass.

I believe he will probably not reduce MHs A380 fleet. Firstly, MOT clearly does not want MH to cancel any of its A380 orders. Also, MH will finally be able to compete with dear SQ down south on the kangaroo route and hence probably see organic growth. MHs current long-haul fleet are just a bunch of time machines. In terms of route rationalisation, this may actually be a good thing. However, I don't think that we'll see a huge cut in routes. If that does happen, then MH will pretty much become a useless carrier. Perhaps, what we'll see is more like what SQ has. A premier airline and at the same time a long-haul budget carrier and at the same time owns 49% of Tiger. More overly, this may actually be a VERY positive thing. For once, MH and AK will finally see themselves serving different markets. Tony has very good management and business skills. MH will finally see itself as a full service carrier and raise the heat on SQ.