Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Mohd Azizul Ramli

Airports' & Airlines' Operational Statistics

Recommended Posts

I'm pleased to c that this forum is becoming better in analyzing facts and figures .... in no time we all should get an MBA - Masters in Business Aviation! If only this user could provide one! :rofl: Syabas to all.

 

BTW, the ratio mentioned of " 1 every 2.7" is a figure of speach when analyzing a statistical data. Please do not get overbored by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one noticed, I missed to collect the data from ACI for the penultimate month, December 2009, and therefore can't conclude the 2009 passengers movement at the busiest airports in the world. Thankfully, someone did collected the data and here are the complete ranking of 175 of the world's busiest airports by passengers movement:

 

2009airports.jpg

2009airports2.jpg

 

As we are all well aware, KUL handled almost 30 million passengers in 2009. This figure makes KUL ranked as the 40th busiest airport in the entire world. KUL is also ranked 4th in South East Asia, after BKK, SIN and CGK.

 

Some interesting notes:

  • Chicago's O'Hare, which was traditionally the second busiest airport in the world since like forever, was knocked down for the very first time by 2 places by Heathrow and Beijing.
  • Beijing is set to become a mega airport of the world with its ever double digit growth and already handling 65 million passengers.
  • Dubai handled close to 41 million passengers, surpassing Suvarnabhumi and Changi for the very first time. Dubai is world's 15th busiest airport in 2009.
  • Suvarnabhumi handled 40.5 million passengers and retaining its position as the busiest airport in South East Asia. Suvarnabhumi is 16th busiest in the world.
  • Changi handled 37.2 million passengers, ranked 2nd in South East Asia and is the 21st busiest airport in the world.
  • A surprise for 2009, Soekarno-Hatta broke into the top 30 ranking for the very first time, signalling Indonesia's future prowess in this arena. Soekarno-Hatta handled 36.5 million passengers in 2009 and is South East Asia's 3rd busiest and also ranked 23rd in the world.

Data was compiled by GregPz of Skyscrapercity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azizul's posted statistics do give a good overview of Airport Developments Globally.

 

Now the next step forward is to analyse as a whole ( macro context) what increases airport travellers and what makes money.

 

IMHO, my initial analyses are .....

KUL as an OD is at "disadvantage" compared to other 3 in the region: literally....

1 SIN - High income City State; Excellent OD base particularly for Premium Travellers / Legacy Carriers

2 BKK - Extremely good tourism as a nation. There's no need to advertise much. However recent events may compromise such scenario.

3 CGK - High population base with 1% are High Income ( works well for legacy and premium demand) and High propotion of "exported" workforce, this creates good volume of budget travellers.

 

If we look at all of the above, Klang Valley lacks of High Income Society and we are more concentrated on Medium and Upper Medium Class Society. This favours more for budget travellers , but the volume is not as significant as the "exported" workforce. And yet we don't have enough volume to support a good premium base. That's y KUL is having difficulty to attarct Legacy carriers like QF, BA, AF ..etc. If say Malaysia transforms into a High Income society as inspired by someone, we should not have a problem in having a good premium base.

 

Even as a HUB, a strong and good OD presence is highly essential. SIN works well for QF-BA as the local traffic could easily "fill in" the gap available.

 

However, KUL and Malaysia's popularity in M/East has managed to offset some of our disadvantages and from the way it looks , it is a market that we can't choose to ignore. What more, these are mainly compromises of High Income Society and Upper Middle Class.

 

Ok let see. SZB recorded 819,840 passengers movement in 2009. Out of this, 670,336 (334,743 arrival + 335,593 departure) is for domestic sector. And SZB handled not only FY, but also Berjaya Air (and a few other Indonesian smaller carriers I suppose), but since Berjaya Air et. al. traffic is minimal, we can safely assume that all figures are for FY.

 

Therefore, if SZB and KUL traffics are combined, for domestic sector:

 

Malaysia Airlines + FireFly (4,407,339 + 670,336) = 5,077,675

AirAsia 5,588,493

 

AK is still the largest domestic airline in Kuala Lumpur (both KUL and SZB) by 500,000 passengers margin when compared to MH + FY. Market share of AK is 52% while MH + FY is 48%.

 

We can also deduce that if the airport taxes are taken into consideration, MH group remains the biggest contributor to MAHB compared to AK in the Domestic Segment. I'm sure Internationally MH remains the biggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can also deduce that if the airport taxes are taken into consideration, MH group remains the biggest contributor to MAHB compared to AK in the Domestic Segment. I'm sure Internationally MH remains the biggest.

I believe we could roughly calculate that. Ok let see from this exercise, airport tax is being imposed on departure point only, so for KUL and SZB, with the assumption that the ratio between the departure and arrival number is 50:50 except for SZB which is using the earlier assumption that all departure and arrival figures in SZB are for FY,

 

FOR DOMESTIC SECTOR

 

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 19,833,051.00

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for arrival at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 19,833,051.00

FireFly (335,593 passengers for domestic departure at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 3,020,337.00

FireFly (334,743 passengers for domestic arrival at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 3,012,687.00

Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 45,699,075.00

 

AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 6 domestic airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 16,765,479.00

AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for arrival at KUL LCCT x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 25,148,218.50

Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by AK = MYR 41,913,697.50

 

*For AK's arrival, it's quite tricky as I believe the airport tax in BKI is MYR 6 instead of MYR 9 because AK is using the LCCT there.

 

So based on this assumption, yes the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK for domestic sector in KUL and SZB.

 

 

FOR INTERNATIONAL SECTOR

 

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 6,515,516 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 51 international airport tax at KUL) = MYR 166,145,658.00

FireFly (73,302 passengers for international departure at SZB x MYR 51 international airport tax at SZB) = MYR 3,738,402.00

Total airport tax for international sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 169,884,060.00

 

AirAsia (50% x 5,024,742 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 62,809,275.00

AirAsia X (50% x 981,241 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 12,265,512.50

Indonesia AirAsia (50% x 910,038 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 11,375,475.00

Total airport tax for international sector paid by AK + D7 + QZ = MYR 86,450,262.50

 

So based on this assumption too, the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK group for international sector in KUL and SZB. But it is just natural as the AK group is being charged with rates much lesser as they are using low cost airport facilities from MAHB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we could roughly calculate that. Ok let see from this exercise, airport tax is being imposed on departure point only, so for KUL and SZB, with the assumption that the ratio between the departure and arrival number is 50:50 except for SZB which is using the earlier assumption that all departure and arrival figures in SZB are for FY,

 

FOR DOMESTIC SECTOR

 

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 19,833,051.00

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 4,407,339 passengers for arrival at KUL x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 19,833,051.00

FireFly (335,593 passengers for domestic departure at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax) = MYR 3,020,337.00

FireFly (334,743 passengers for domestic arrival at SZB x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 3,012,687.00

Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 45,699,075.00

 

AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 6 domestic airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 16,765,479.00

AirAsia (50% x 5,588,493 passengers for arrival at KUL LCCT x MYR 9 domestic airport tax from other domestic airports) = MYR 25,148,218.50

Total airport tax for domestic sector paid by AK = MYR 41,913,697.50

 

*For AK's arrival, it's quite tricky as I believe the airport tax in BKI is MYR 6 instead of MYR 9 because AK is using the LCCT there.

 

So based on this assumption, yes the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK for domestic sector in KUL and SZB.

 

 

FOR INTERNATIONAL SECTOR

 

Malaysia Airlines (50% x 6,515,516 passengers for departure at KUL x MYR 51 international airport tax at KUL) = MYR 166,145,658.00

FireFly (73,302 passengers for international departure at SZB x MYR 51 international airport tax at SZB) = MYR 3,738,402.00

Total airport tax for international sector paid by MH + FY = MYR 169,884,060.00

 

AirAsia (50% x 5,024,742 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 62,809,275.00

AirAsia X (50% x 981,241 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 12,265,512.50

Indonesia AirAsia (50% x 910,038 passengers for departure at KUL LCCT x MYR 25 international airport tax for LCCT) = MYR 11,375,475.00

Total airport tax for international sector paid by AK + D7 + QZ = MYR 86,450,262.50

 

So based on this assumption too, the MH group paid more airport taxes than AK group for international sector in KUL and SZB. But it is just natural as the AK group is being charged with rates much lesser as they are using low cost airport facilities from MAHB.

 

Now, the next logical thing to deduce is that based on the above, the proportion of expenses for the airport development / expenditure ( CAPEX and OPEX) should be based on such breakdown. Is that the case here? However, we must not forget the growth in numbers as such may influence the CAPEX determination. The next question would be to what extend that justify such Airport CAPEX breakdown between LCC and Legacy Carriers?

 

BTW, Azizul must have been taking a break watching Spain vs Germany that he was able to do such analyses at that time of the hour. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Azizul must have been taking a break watching Spain vs Germany that he was able to do such analyses at that time of the hour.

I don't have tv access last night. 'Watching' the match through Emirates live podcast at fifa.com only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beijing overtakes Heathrow as world's second-busiest airport

July 8, 2010

 

Beijing International Airport has overtaken London Heathrow as the world's second busiest, in a sign of China's growing dominance of international travel.

 

In terms of seat capacity, Beijing International is now second only to Atlanta Hartsfield in the US, according to a July 6 report by aviation analyst OAG.

 

...

 

The World's Busiest Airports

 

Ranked by Seat Capacity, data from OAG

 

1. Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL)

 

2. Beijing (PEK)

 

3. London Heathrow (LHR)

 

4. Chicago O Hare (ORD)

 

5. Tokyo Haneda (HND)

 

6. Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG)

 

7. Los Angeles (LAX)

 

8. Frankfurt (FRA)

 

9. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW)

 

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/beijing-overtakes-heathrow-as-worlds-secondbusiest-airport-20100708-1019i.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ranking of the world's top 30 busiest airports for Q1 2010 has been released by ACI, as follows:

 

Top30Q12010.jpg

 

Some notes to share:

  • It seems the aviation sector is looking solid in 2010. Only 3 of the world's 30 busiest airports recorded a slight decline in passengers movement.
  • Asian airports are dominant with double digit growth and also improving their respective rankings (PEK, BKK, DXB, CAN, SIN, CGK, PVG, ICN).
  • Beijing is assuring its top placing with only Atlanta, the world's busiest airport since like forever, being the hurdle.
  • Suvarnabhumi is South East Asia's busiest airport, ranked 9th in the world, up from 16th in the year end 2009 ranking.
  • The competition between Changi and Soekarno-Hatta is getting more intense. Both airports are neck to neck at world ranking no. 17 and 18 respectively with only 102,503 passengers margin. Based on the growth percentage, Soekarno-Hatta is expected to topple Changi for the first time ever in history in no time, thus becoming South East Asia's 2nd busiest airport.
  • Incheon finished at no. 41 in the year end 2009 ranking behind KLIA. They are now at no. 30 in the Q1 2010 ranking.
  • KLIA is nowhere to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naim, soon to be the busiest airport in the world, do u thk so? :clapping:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGK is mostly domestic traffic though, right? With low-cost carriers booming all around, it'll be hard for SIN and KUL to compete against a nation which has more than 200 million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGK is mostly domestic traffic though, right? With low-cost carriers booming all around, it'll be hard for SIN and KUL to compete against a nation which has more than 200 million people.

 

In 10-15 years, if Indonesia economy keeps improving CGK can easily surpass SIN and even BKK, especially with their location which closer to Australia. I can see KLM use CGK as a hub to Australia when GA is well established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGK is mostly domestic traffic though, right? With low-cost carriers booming all around, it'll be hard for SIN and KUL to compete against a nation which has more than 200 million people.

 

This is where good airport management efficiency and civil aviation friendly government will play a big role. AMS is a fine example, 16 million nation population base but managed to be a good hub with excellent OD ( thanks to the strong and high income base). Even SIN for a city state population of around 4.0 million manages to have an extremely good number of pax.

 

In the end, a strong high income population base do help and will have greater impact with a nation with high population but with less high income base. It will work better for premium demand and this may likely encourage other foreign legacy carriers to establish a hub. As observed for QF/BA @ SIN, DL(formerly NW) and UA @ NRT. Furthermore the high income society would likely travel more frequently and to major / key financial centres for trade ( ZRH , JFK, LHR , HKG, PVG, NRT/HND..etc. would be a must) and would also take leisure holidays at least once a year ( DPS, OOL/BNE, including short hops to LGK/BKI/KCH...etc.) This effectively create good demand for both the LCC and Legacy Carriers as well, as these people would travel frequently, as said earlier. Statistically, the 9 million pax in SIN also translates that the entire population of SIN would have travelled 2.25 times ! ( Of course tourist arrivals and transit pax needs to be considered as well.)

 

However, to create greater and sustain high and good consistent income would be essential in ensuring continuous success. Good governance is needed for such mission.

 

Tourism may also be seen as another good contributor , however, it's votality in numbers and fast response to news ( including rumours) would not be an easy task. SARS/Bird Flu outbreaks r good examples that the number of tourist arrivals can easily be a big negative within a day and would lasts for a few months! Of course good and stable governance with consistant tourism related policy would help.

 

We must also never forget a middle / low income "worker" would likely not spend as much money as a high income frequent traveller at the airport shops!

 

Finally, good base carrier do have the advantages interms of thru' traffic. Specifically, it should be seemless efficiency and good value for money. Something that BA is trying to achieve at T5 LHR.

Edited by Ruiz Razy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CGK is mostly domestic traffic though, right? With low-cost carriers booming all around, it'll be hard for SIN and KUL to compete against a nation which has more than 200 million people.

On top of what Ruiz Razy has mentioned, I think a significant portion of SIN's number is contributed by Indonesian and Filipino travelers too. So, a small nation with a good airport facility and a good airline (as in this case SQ) can rope in a large nation with huge population like Indonesia and the Philippines to their advantages. Hong Kong and Dubai are another prime example. Sadly, I don't think MH is doing KUL a favour with regards to the movements of the Indonesians and the Filipinos, the way SQ is doing it for SIN.

 

In 10-15 years, if Indonesia economy keeps improving CGK can easily surpass SIN and even BKK, especially with their location which closer to Australia. I can see KLM use CGK as a hub to Australia when GA is well established.

Based on the numbers, I think CGK will surpass SIN this year - 2010. I agree with you about KLM and CGK. This will becoming more apparent if GA's inclusion into SkyTeam materialized.

 

We must also never forget a middle / low income "worker" would likely not spend as much money as a high income frequent traveller at the airport shops! Finally, good base carrier do have the advantages interms of thru' traffic. Specifically, it should be seemless efficiency and good value for money.

Which is why I think KUL does stand a chance to redeem itself, being the hub of Asia's biggest LCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same annual report:

 

 

10 LARGEST AIRLINES IN KUL (INTERNATIONAL SECTOR)

 

2009

 

Top10Int.jpg

 

 

2008

 

10LargestKUL.jpg

 

 

2007

 

10LargestKUL07.jpg

 

 

Some notes to share:

 

MH's market share further spiraling down from 38.4% in 2008 to 33.1% in 2009. Kindly be informed that MH held 45.4% of international sector market share in KUL in 2007. MH carried 450,905 less passengers in 2009 than it did in 2008.

 

On the other hand, AK's market share improved from 21.1% in 2008 to 25.5% in 2009. AK carried 1,192,382 more international passengers in 2009 than it did in 2008.

 

The difference of passengers number between MH and AK is 1,490,774 in 2009, compared to 3,134,061 passengers in 2008. AK is fast becoming the largest international airline in KUL.

 

The figures for AK above are for 'AK' coded flights only, which means it excluded its sister airlines - D7, QZ and FD. As a group, the AirAsia group has already clinched the title of the largest airline group operating in KUL.

 

Also interesting to note as well, out of the top 10 international airlines in KUL, 3 of them belong to the AirAsia group, while another 2 belong to the SIA group.

 

All 3 global alliances are well represented by the top 10 international airlines in KUL - OneWorld with CX, Star with SQ, TG and MI while SkyTeam with KL. Airlines with global alliances association comprised of 50% of the top 10 international airlines in KUL.

 

Out of the 10 largest airlines in KUL, 3 are LCC, while the other 7 are legacy.

 

 

2009 vs 2008 Other Gainers and Losers

 

Gainers

- AirAsia X gained 724,305 passengers, improved market share in KUL from 1.4% to 5%

- Indonesia AirAsia gained 275,006 passengers

- Emirates gained 45,782 passengers

- KLM gained 31,590 passengers

- Silk Air made an impressive debut into the top 10 with 302,160 passengers movement, controlling 1.5% of KUL international market share

 

Losers

- Cathay Pacific lost 10,854 passengers

- Singapore Airlines lost 436,596 passengers. Market share dipped from 6.4% in 2007 to only 2.5% in 2009. SQ used to carry more than 1 million passengers in KUL in 2007 and prior

- Thai Airways lost 46,836 passengers

- Qatar Airways was no longer a top 10 airline in KUL

 

The massive dip of SQ's market share and MI's sudden rise is inter-related as SQ handed over quite a bulk of their flights to MI when the KUL-SIN vv route was liberalised since October 2008.

 

The largest foreign airline in KUL for international sector is QZ, surprise, surprise!

It wasnt surprise.QZ flies to KUL from 5 Indonesian cities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess they're interested with the development too.

 

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7/14/nation/20100714193122&sec=nation

 

AirAsia flew more passengers than MAS last year

 

KUALA LUMPUR: Budget airline AirAsia overtook national carrier Malaysia Airlines (MAS) last year in terms of overall passenger volume, the Dewan Rakyat was told Wednesday.

 

Transport Minister Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha said AirAsia flew 15.23 million passengers last year compared to the 13.87 million recorded by MAS.

 

Of the AirAsia passengers, 7.2 million were international passengers while 8.03 million were domestic passengers, he said in a written reply to a question from Loke Siew Fook (DAP-Rasah).

 

Of the MAS passengers, 7.37 million were international passengers and 6.5 million, domestic passengers, he added. - Bernama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACI has just released the ranking of the world's top 30 busiest airports for the first 4 months of 2010.

 

Top30Apr2010.jpg

 

Some notes to share:

  • While Beijing stays at no. 2, Heathrow plunged to no. 5! O'Hare and Haneda are now ahead of Heathrow.
  • Suvarnabhumi stays as South East Asia's busiest airport with 15.5 million passengers movement recorded for the first 4 months of 2010. Impressive numbers!
  • History written. April 2010 was the period when the passengers movement in Soekarno-Hatta surpassed Changi for the first time in history. Changi is now officially NOT the second busiest airport in South East Asia anymore. Soekarno-Hatta is now handling 88,638 passengers more than Changi.
  • KLIA is still nowhere to be found among the world's top 30 busiest airports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where exactly our KLIA's placing? Well, since this is the only current data that I got,

 

MAHBQ12010.jpg

 

... we can safely say that KLIA's numbers are not bad at all. KLIA handled close to 8 million passengers in Q1 2010, an increase of an astonishing 24% from the same in 2009.

 

Top30Q12010.jpg

 

Based on this ranking as at 31 March 2010, KLIA's passengers movement is only 160,814 behind that of Incheon, which means we could be very well in the region of world ranking no. 31 to no. 35. Should KLIA maintains this number, we could expect our home airport to record 32 million passengers by year end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems LCCT at KUL will be under capacity soon and before the new LCCT is ready, and MTB utilization is less than 50% of design capacity.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems LCCT at KUL will be under capacity soon and before the new LCCT is ready, and MTB utilization is less than 50% of design capacity.

We can do a little exercise here. Using the assumption that the quarterly figures will remain unchanged for the next 3 quarters:

 

MTB is expected to handle (4,402,400 passengers x 4 quarters) = 17,609,600 passengers.

MTB capacity is 35 million passengers per annum. Therefore by year end, the MTB is only (17,609,600/35,000,000) = 51% utilised. Not good.

 

The LCCT on the other hand, is expected to handle (3,533,900 passengers x 4 quarters) = 14,135,600 passengers.

The current LCCT capacity is 15 million passengers per annum. Therefore by year end, the LCCT is having (14,135,600/15,000,000) = 95% utilization. Almost reaching full capacity.

 

So since the new LCCT will only be ready by 2012, in 2011 the existing LCCT is expected to be exceeding its designed capacity for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can do a little exercise here. Using the assumption that the quarterly figures will remain unchanged for the next 3 quarters:

 

MTB is expected to handle (4,402,400 passengers x 4 quarters) = 17,609,600 passengers.

MTB capacity is 35 million passengers per annum. Therefore by year end, the MTB is only (17,609,600/35,000,000) = 51% utilised. Not good.

 

 

35 million? I think the capacity of MTB is 25 million since there is no record of expansion (excluding new LCCT construction).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no exact reference for that.

 

In MAHB website, they only mentioned "Kuala Lumpur International Airport is capable of handling 35 million passengers and 1.2 million tonnes of cargo a year in its current phase." So is this 35 million capacity is inclusive of the current LCCT? If it is, then the MTB capacity is only 20 million (20 million passengers at MTB + 15 million passengers at LCCT = 35 million passengers for KLIA).

 

In KLIA's website, there is no mention about its capacity whatsoever.

 

In KLIA's wikipedia page, at the introduction paragraph, it was mentioned that "Kuala Lumpur International Airport is capable of handling 35 million passengers and 1.2 million tonnes of cargo a year in its current phase." But if one scrolls down, there's a long box at the right side, which mentioned that the current KLIA capacity is 40 million annual passengers. The breakdown is 5 million passengers at the MTB and Contact Pier, 20 million passengers at the Satellite Terminal and 15 million passengers at the LCCT. This leads to this wikipedia page contradicts its own data.

 

So which is which?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understand at KUL, each satellite terminal can handle 15 million, contact pier 10 million (total 25 million as in 2010). However, MTB was built for 40 million.

 

LCCT was mean for 10 million.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess they're interested with the development too.

 

AirAsia flew more passengers than MAS last year

How about this year? Let see, for the Q1 2010 period...

 

MHQ12010Pax.jpg

 

MH carried 3,115,000 passengers (1,158,000 domestic + 1,957,000 international) an increase of 26.4% from the same in 2009. Load factor is 74.8% (66.7% domestic + 75.9% international). Looking good.

 

 

The red team on the other hand...

 

AKQ12010.jpg

 

AK carried 3,685,389 passengers (no breakdown between domestic and international is available) an increase of 17.1% from the same in 2009. Load factor is 73.5%.

 

AirAsia also made available the statistics for FD and QZ, all recorded sterling operational results.

 

FDQ12010.jpg

 

QZQ12010.jpg

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Total passengers carried

AK 3,685,389

MH 3,115,000

Margin 570,389

 

Change from same period last year

MH +26.4%

AK +17.1%

 

Load factor

MH 74.8%

AK 73.5%

 

I think both our blue and red teams recorded some good figures so far for Q1 2010. AK is still leading on the passengers numbers but it seems MH is fast catching up. Load factor on MH flights are slightly higher than AK too.

Edited by Mohd Azizul Ramli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have just been my ignorance, but surprised to learn that the Thai division carries more passengers than the Indonesian one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...