filipeseda

Which I believe is insufficient.

I don't think it is rather appropriate to compare HKG and CAN with SIN and KUL, for several reasons: 1) CAN simply survives off domestic travel which makes its pax. numbers. M'sian airports or airlines for that matter, simply cannot rely on M'sian domestic travel due to the size of the M'sia itself. It does not have 1.3 billion people or 300 million people for that matter, neither is it geographically sustainable. 2) China Southern again relies primarily on domestic travel. It can always shut down its international operations and rely completely on the domestic market. 3) I agree with you that the two airports should find their own niches. A more appropriate scenario is that in Europe where you have three giants all less than 90 mins away from each other- LHR, CDG & AMS. All of them are hubs for pretty much the same routes- transatlantic or intra-Europe and perhaps routes to Africa. The thing that keeps these guys going is the sheer size of the markets that they serve and the diverse range of destinations they serve. Of course, these cities are naturally global, and they spring to mind quite easily. KUL needs to do the same, it needs to find new markets while strengthen its stand on the Kangaroo route and intra-SEA flights, which it looses out to to her two competitors up north and down south. MH should see itself now as part of a global network since it is part of OW. It needs to find new markets and grow them and at the same time be more competitive to its rivals, which it just doesn't seem to want to do. Lastly, of course makign KUL into a global city or improving M'sia tourism product is a HUGE advantage, but again, whether that materialises under UMNO remains to be seen.

More importantly, the LCCT should be provided with a seemless connection to the main terminal building perhaps via the Aerotrain or a post security bus system. The current design is as if it is part of a seperate airport and the connections are rather laborious and take up a lot of time. This will also enable KUL to gain an upper hand against Changi where its budget terminal has no transfer facilities. Furthermore by doing so, KUL can accomadate a greater variety of travellers' needs. For example, for those arriving on long-haul/medium-haul flights via the main terminal, can then transfer to short haul LCC flights at the LCCT to destinations within the region, which is in fact not a very uncommon practise.

Depends on your tupe of travel. Business pax. remain loyal to SQ and the likes because of its mileage and overall network outreach. Personally, I will probably not make GA my primal mode of airline travel even once it's in Skyteam simply because I want to avoid Skyteam carriers as much as possible (AF/KL/DL)and most of my long-haul travel is to Europe or N. America where I've got LX or CO with Star Alliance (SQ) or BA with OW (CX). But it really depends on you yourself, both are comparable now, I'd imagine.

GA has recently posted losses during the Q1 2011, so I'd expect a fair bit of cost cutting. However, despite this, GA is in someways in a better position then MH and that is they're riding on the growing Indonesian economy that continues to buldge, hence making their CGK hub more lucrative for other carriers as well to flock to. Right now, MH needs to set its priorities right. A 5-star value carrier is frankly, unworkable. MH needs to target business pax. and upper end economy pax., because ultimately such passengers provide financial weatlh for full service carriers. MH does not have the ability to compete with LCCs, simply because it isn't one. After all, FY is its LCC. To do so, it needs to good products, comparable with the likes of other carriers if not better, great miles, which is good that they've joined one, a better MH!!!! network, not slapping codeshares everywhere. MH should leverage on lower operating costs in M'sia, given the country's lower wages etc., to entice people for a good deal with comparable if not better products, and not compare things to LCCs (free food, airbridge, what rubbish!!) However, will MH deliver, that remains to be seen. Judging from Mr. Azmil's rhetoric, I think only partially. He doesn't seem to realise that SQ and TG are in alliances not to develop their hubs into tourist hotspots, but for business pax. and the like!

Rationalising its corportate structure is a key step towards reducing wastage. However, given that Francis played a pivotal role in turning MH around, MH should've gotten rid of some other dead weight. Anyways, on the whole, the problem with MH is that it only seems to implement stop gap measures. It covers up a whole but another one emerges. Although I do give credit to Jala who did do the correct with reducing wastage, though not always spot on. However, he simply halted the impending MH doom and to a certain extent alleviated it. However, he did not prepare MH for the future. Essentially, it was just get out of the mess you're in and we'll see what happens after that. Because of that, we're seeing other cracks emerging. An ageing fleet that is becoming inefficient and costly to maintain, plus downgrades MHs product. A shrinking route network and an alliance that came all too late, which isn't all too good with business pax. Furthermore, he failed to change the fundamentals of MH, for example its burgeoning corporate blob and ,I beg to differ, its employment structure. Given that labour costs in M'sia are significantly lower than across the causeway, MH seems to instead hire more heads. The problem with this, is that productivity goes down and you end up with below par service, which is the frequent occurance I've had with MH during my frequent SIN-KUL hops. Furthermore, if MH had the same staff ratio as SQ or CX, it could potentially spend a lot less on labour and really make a dent in cost cutting, unlike replacing mealtrays for disposable paper boxes. With regards to fleet planning, I do agree that MH has not been sucessful at all in this department. Again, this is the legacy of Jala who differed fleet renewal and now frankly it comes quite late. MH only made plans in 2008 for the B734 and agin in 2009/10 for the A330. It has yet to make any plans for the B772 and I don't blame MH. It's simply replacing it's whole fleet in ONE SHOT! By far, this is quite a feet. However, MH should really be phasing out planes in stages as opposed to waiting and replacing all. It should've made decisions to replace its 734s earlier once it returned to profitability and the A330s as well so that at least by now it would have 15-20 B738s and approx. 7 A333s and of course now it would be making plans to refurbish its B772s and making plans to replace them. Lastly, its route network. Frankly, its routes ceo sounds REALLY incompetent in the videos I've seen of the person. Though, I might just be judgemental. It's mosaic by far was a step backwards. It should've negotiated to join an alliance once it was out of unprofitability. Having an alliance is a huge advantage, espacially in the region where many operate on that basis. When I look at an FIDs in SIN and compare it to the one in KUL, the main difference, apart from the new gate nonsense (though I'd really like someone to explain that one) is that you see a lot more destinations outside SEA. In KUL you pretty much get the M'sia domestic, a fair number to CGK, DPS, BKK, SIN (of course) and the odd ones here and there to further abroad destinations. SIN has been able to grow into a hub unlike KUL. MH has not been able to utilise KUL as a hub, in part because of its lack of an aliance and its limited network reach. MH needs to make sure it has sensible frequencies for business pax and a far reaching network. It should aim to expand its Kangaroo route share. Perhaps strengthen regionals to India and so on. And, it needs to make itslef wanted by business pax. who essentially go for miles, the lounge, the frequencies and the ride itself. Furthermore, MH needs to see itself as adventurers and find new markets and grow them, like what D7s CEO at RotesAsia. Tengku is in some ways doing things correctly, though he seems to be doing it rather slowly. And his best airline in Asia is really just a feel good thing. Bes in what? MH- Melepaskan Harapan or Menaikan Harapan, which will it be?

Embattled Malaysia Airlines in $8 bn fightback By M. Jegathesan (AFP) KUALA LUMPUR — Under siege at both the budget and high end of the air travel market, Malaysia Airlines is fighting back with a multi-billion-dollar fleet renewal plan in an effort to secure its future. Analysts say that in recent years the company has been overshadowed by its aggressive upstart rival, Malaysian budget carrier AirAsia, while Singapore Airlines and others remain formidable competitors in the business sector. A few years ago Malaysia Airlines was on life support, forced to sell off its headquarters, slash unprofitable routes and fire thousands of staff to avoid bankruptcy. In 2005 it racked up losses of 1.3 billion ringgit ($386 million) over nine months, a dismal performance that forced the introduction of sweeping reforms which saw the airline swing into the black in 2007. Now the state-owned carrier is looking to build on the recovery with orders for six long-haul Airbus A380 superjumbos, plus 25 Airbus A330-300s and 45 Boeing 737-800s for regional use, with an option to buy 10 more of the US model. In all, the bill comes to $8.4 billion. "By 2015, we will have one of the youngest fleets in the world," the flag-carrier's managing director, Tengku Azmil Zahruddin Raja Abdul Aziz told AFP in an interview. The firm has already received five Boeing 737-800s and three Airbus A330s, while the first A380 will arrive in the second quarter of next year, he said. The double-decker superjumbos, the world's biggest commercial passenger plane, will be used to serve cities such as London, the airline's most lucrative destination in Europe. "What we need to do is to be the best airline serving out of Kuala Lumpur," said Tengku Azmil. "That is what we want to do." The purchases were part of an ambitious "multi initiative strategy" that also includes reducing fuel and maintenance costs and seeking more market share, he said. "It is a major refleeting programme. The new aircraft will have better fuel efficiency, low maintenance, higher reliability, so we actually will be able to further reduce our unit cost. The aim is to increase the margins." But aviation experts said Malaysia Airlines faces strong headwinds. AirAsia, launched less than 10 years ago, now already flies to 78 destinations, with its long-haul arm AirAsia X covering another 11, while 64-year-old Malaysia Airlines has more than 110 airports on its route map. Other prominent low-cost carriers including Jetstar Asia also serve the region, and Singapore Airlines said in May it plans to launch a new medium- to long-haul budget subsidiary within a year. At the other end of the market, the city-state's flag-carrier and Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific are major global operators favoured by business travellers. "In the business segment, they (Malaysia Airlines) are not in the position to compete with Singapore Airlines" because of the size of its network, Shukor Yusof, an aviation analyst with Standard & Poor's Equities Research told AFP. "In the economy section, they are losing out to AirAsia." "Absolutely, AirAsia has overshadowed Malaysia Airlines. AirAsia has been eating away their business from day one." Shukor, who is based in Singapore, pointed out that despite a staff of 19,000 people, Malaysia Airlines was not as productive as AirAsia, which has around 4,500 employees. "In a nutshell they have been slow to ride the market. Asia was performing better two to three years ago and they did not do much to take advantage of it," he added. But Chris Eng, head of research with Malaysian brokerage OSK Research, welcomed the aircraft orders and said the carrier should focus on preventing its loyal customers from leaving. "Malaysia Airlines' efforts should be to contain any bleeding of full-fare passengers to other full-service carriers operating via Singapore or Bangkok," he said. As it happens, Tengku Azmil agrees. "In terms of business traffic Singapore has naturally more business traffic than Malaysia. We do not have that many business class seats like Singapore Airlines," he said. "It will be a mistake for us to become like Singapore Airlines. Singapore Airlines serves a different market."

For some reasons the FIDs only display 3 (actual/non-codeshare) MH flights (SIN, SBW & DEL) and does little to show that MH is all over the world.

The National, 3 Jul Etihad Airways is considering a move to join one of the three main global airline alliances, a plan that could create a fundamental shift in the Middle East's aviation industry. James Hogan, the chief executive of Etihad, said his airline would make a "great partner" with either Star Alliance, oneworld or SkyTeam, but he would not rush into taking such far-reaching action. "We believe we would be a great partner for one of the alliances," Mr Hogan said. "If we get into an alliance, we would represent a very important part of the world which most alliances aren't serving properly today." Such a move would further distinguish Etihad from its two larger neighbours Emirates Airline in Dubai and Qatar Airways, which have both pursued go-it-alone strategies. By contrast, Etihad has quietly amassed code-share partnerships with 31 carriers from around the globe to extend the reach of its network. It would be a natural progression to continue on this path of partnering other airlines and formally join an alliance, said Mr Hogan. However, the airline is going to carefully weigh its options, he added. "We are not rushing in. It has to win, and it has to be right for both organisations." Airline alliances have evolved over the past 15 years in response to stringent restrictions on airline ownership worldwide. Since airlines are seen as strategic and symbolic national assets, many governments forbid foreign ownership. But in such a fragmented industry, with razor-thin profit margins, airlines have responded by bunching together, linking up their flights to offer passengers more travel options. "So many airlines join one of the big three alliances because it allows them to reap the benefits of free-flowing traffic without the restrictions of ownership," said Addison Schonland, an aviation analyst with Innovation Analysis Group of the US. Star Alliance, led by Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and United, is the biggest airline group with 27 members that last year collectively flew 796.3 billion passenger kilometres, a key industry metric. This is almost double that of oneworld, led by British Airways, Qantas and American Airlines, or Sky Team, led by Air France-KLM and Delta Air Lines. For passengers, alliances offer simpler ticketing processes and smoother connections on intercontinental trips, as well as the chance to earn and redeem frequent-flier miles on other member carriers. Emirates Airline is the world's largest unaffiliated airline, flying 143.6 billion international passenger kilometres last year, while Qatar Airways is the second-largest and Etihad ranks eighth-largest by international capacity worldwide. One of the biggest questions would be whether Etihad would continue to honour its existing bilateral relationships with 31 other carriers, including its strategic alliance with Virgin Australia. There has also been speculation the Virgin group of airlines could create a fourth major alliance. But Mr Hogan said any speculation linking Etihad to such a proposal was too premature to discuss. "If it adds up, yes [we will do an alliance], if not I'm happy to continue to build strong bilateral agreements and work with all three groups," he said. Next year, Middle East Airlines (MEA) of Lebanon, Saudi Arabian Airlines and Gulf Air of Bahrain hope to join one of the big three airline groupings to help feed traffic into their networks. MEA and Saudi Arabian both plan to join SkyTeam, while Gulf Air is undecided. Oman Air and Royal Air Maroc have also been named as likely to go with an international alliance.

Totally agree with you. The entire cabin should be retrofitted with the A380 product. Perhaps there could be a mix of two and three class config.'s based on demand for the route.

http://http://www.youtube.com/user/RoutesonlineTV#p/u/14/rHsLnbvGeFk versus http://http://www.youtube.com/user/RoutesonlineTV#p/u/16/AUc6_VwVZbs oops, how to post videos?

It won't be unless you replace those B777s or refurbish. And, as much as I agree that having a monstrous fleet isn't the main determining factor, MH should also bear in mind that it is now part of an airline alliance, meaning that it should provide network enhancements to the existing OW network, which I don't really see from the exisiting MH network. And, given that MH is facing direct competition from TG and SQ, essentially they're catering to the same market, MH cannot afford to loose out in terms network, frequencies, etc. Furthermore, given that MH is catering to the full service market, premium travellers tend to look at such things when choosing which airline to fly. a) Mileage Does it go where I want to go and have a reliable frequency. AA is by far the worst US legacy carrier. Last year, close to 2000 flights were canceled because of their MD-80/90 aircraft that failed FAA inspection. Then of course LAN, which I believe by far is the healthiest, NOT BA, as it's ridding on the booming continent and of course dear all and mighty CX. Malev was saved by the Hungarian g'ment btw. IB is just CRAP, horrible service standards. Then you've of course got Kingfisher, which is a good leap into the sub-continent, but then again, OW is still by far the smallest alliance. Quite frankly, FY was a really BAD mistake! MH should be focused on beefing up its fleet and network, and not try to compete with AK and snatch its customers.

Quite accurate. MAS is just digging a grave for itself with FY. The market is not big enough to sustain the multitude of LCCs and furthermore, MAS just doesn't know where it stands. What is a 5-star value carrier. MH, you are a premier airline, get that through your head. BERTIA 101: Yes it has

Another job for Lui Tuck Yew Anyways, CAAS will probably perform a safety audit, though the problem may be unique to their Australia operations.

They provide the OW network with a strong E. European network and I suppose you can point to Aegean, Spanair etc. in Star Alliance as sort've of the same concept and reason for why these mamoth alliances allow small players in to simply boost their network as much as possible. But really, I mean if MH does not refurbish its B777 or replace these within the near future, I don't see MH bringing much to the OW table, apart from opening up more destinations within the region, just like Malev, more destinations in E. Europe, that's it. Yes it has the A380, but they're only operating on a handful of routes and there'll be this huge service inconsistency. MH has so much potential to develop its Kangaroo route operations because of QF, and yet it isn't bitting into it. Who on earth decided to purchase 10 more B738s? Seriously, USELESS! Why doesn't MH have any ambitions? I know this is an SQ thread, sorry. But yup, great news for SQ frequent flyers, no more ageing B772 Carpe Diem MH! Latin for Cease the day!!!!

Haha, It's lunchtime, and another one of my useless threads. Anyways, with all the buzz about Oneworld and MH, I was thinking, yes congrats to MAS for joining OW and it's the most sensible since Skyteam now has GA...etc. just want to get some stuff off my chest over the whole thing. 1) By 2012 Skyteam will have two SEA carriers, VN, which has a strong Indo-China network and of course, GA, which has huge a potential given that Indonesia is booming. Essentially, Skyteam has solidified its SEA standing. Then you have MH and OW, which of course will open new destinations in M'sia, but really nothing much beyond that regionally, apart from better connectivity within the region. Don't forget, CGK has the potential to be a Kangaroo route hub as well but the only catch is that there's no Skyteam Oceania partner. 2) Oneworld has no players in the PRC, another gaping whole, apart from CX and Dragonair which provide much of the PRC destinations. The only Chinese carriers that have not been allianced are Xiamen Airlines or Sichuan Airlines, and oh god, that's about it. 3) Mexicana is bust, so Central America isn't covered, but that's not so much of an issue as AA can provide good links from MIA and DFW 4) Africa, absolutely zilch. Right now, I can only think of a handful of carriers that might qualify. RAM, which can provide N. African destinations thru CMN and maybe TAAG Angolan if they improve and expand their network, that can provide sub-saharan links, then again these carriers are fairly underpar and I don't see this happening in the near future. So, it's not to say that OW is a weak alliance, it has room to improve, but it should be adequate enough for MH if MH ceases the opportunity. Think about it, right now, if I'm a passeneger from Australia and as usual I'm a QF FFP and I need to get to ATH, MUC, FCO or MAN, and the likes, all of which have considerable demand from Australia, and given that QF only flies to FRA and LHR, my trip takes 3 connections, once through SIN or BKK or HKG, then again through BAs hub in LHR or AYs in HEL. This is versus using Star Alliance, and of course now with the whole VA/SQ thing, it's a simple two step connection. Once in SIN or of course BKK, that's it. So, MH could really compete with the whole VA/SQ thing. I mean MH/QF, that would work. MH needs to expand its network in Europe to essentially where it's missing, and I'm sure it would be competitive. And, it can strengthen regional routes to, like introducing services to Indo-China, Chiang Mai & Vientiane for example, or services in Indon like Pekan or Palembang, which are only served by AK. Might work?? C'mon MH, you never know until you try it.

Shouldn't they at least be refurbished. How is MH going to improve its network as an OW member then, unless they want to be like Malev, a regional player????

It's not as if MHs relationship with VA was that closely knit in the first place, apart from slapping codeshares.

Having a developed economy is an advantage, but it is not always the main catalyst for airport traffic. Look at BKK?

Sorry to be such a troll, I do agree that Pak Tony likes to blow his trumpet, but didn't Tengky Azmil also say that the new MH A330 couldn't be beaten and that it had the best seats??? Again, I have my doubts that the product will be nothing but mediocre like LH or AF, nothing more. But, sometimes its good to keep our expectations low. For all you know, MH might surprise us. SQs seats are pretty up there. They're the widest and have the largest bed. It's really like traveling in F-. Don't think KE or TG even come remotely close.

Haha, 2020, then they might make KUL a hub.

It won't be SQ superior. Period. MH is "Melepaskan Harapan", Malay for no more hope

Sorry to burst all our "HARAPAN" and joy, if you will, over the MH A380 announcements. It looks like MH is still a Toyota and doesn't want to compete directly with SQ. Look at TGs buisness, for examplae, yeah I know they're 74' not 75' unlike MAS, 1', who cares. But what is more important is the design of the seat itself, which maximises privacy and it's not a nightmare to get in and out of. Plus, because of its slanted semi-herringbow design, the seats look like they've got more to offer. A while back, someone, can't remember who posted the only bits of info on the A380 config. and there's one thing that just gives it away. The 2-2-2 configuration and don'f forget its the upper deck which essentially has the same with as an A330. So really, essentially the seats are a lie-flat version of the crappy A330 J. MH is commiting the same mistake, its giving tons of legroom but a tight width. They're probably going to be very similar to the AF/LH design, which I can tell you, are run of the mill. On the other hand, I've flown SQ A380 services to CDG ans SYD over the past year, and I can tell you, they are superb, that's what brings loyalty to SQ, their product. Compare the LH/AF seats (likely to resemble the MH seats) My link My link Versus My link or KE (biz class) I believe it's a no-brainer The problem is that MH is still stuck in this conservative frame of mind. Yes, I know the SQ/EK/KE/CX/EY etc. seats are the pinacle of J seats, but if MH isn't aiming for that, I don't see how it plans to compete. And, SQ already has these seats on their 77W. Again, MH will probably take another 6 years or so before it phases out its 772 fleet. Sorry couldn't upload the a'liner.net pics

I doubt BA and QF will make KUL their thriving hub, after all they've said it themselves. As an airline SIN is more attractive, given that S'pore is a financial hub unlike KL. A good example is AMN, where a large chunk of traffic is RJ traffic, even though AMN can compete with DXB geographically or another example is HEL, which does not see as much connectivity as the usual suspects, LHR, AMS, FRA, etc. QF is likely to cut routes although it may find that SIN is already saturated and use the DL strategy of finding under-served markets, and instead utilise KUL as its hub, but I highly doubt that, given that it will posses direct competition from MH operating the same kangaroo routes, and that's not a good thing if you're allianced. The more likely carrier is BA, which I believe can introduce KUL-DPS tags or KUL-CGK tags at the time being. Apart from that perhaps AY, with a tag through the sub-continent, that might make sense.

That's what MH needs