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

MAS New 15 A330-300X + 4 A330-200 Freighter

Recommended Posts

The former A333 9M-MKS departed SZB yesterday as TC-OCC direct to Istanbul on delivery to Onur Air

Quoted from Liam's post in the Observation Hill subforum, with 9M-MKS which is leased from ILFC being surrendered, MH is now left with 9 A333s (all are owned by MH or PMB) and 3 A332s (all are leased from ILFC). Former A333 9M-MKR left for Brussels Airlines not too long ago.

 

A333

1. 9M-MKA

2. 9M-MKC

3. 9M-MKD

4. 9M-MKE

5. 9M-MKF

6. 9M-MKG

7. 9M-MKH

8. 9M-MKI

9. 9M-MKJ

 

A332

10. 9M-MKV

11. 9M-MKW

12. 9M-MKX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, An aircraft frame can be used up to 20 - 25 years before being "recycled" into frying pans, containers,...etc. This is of course subject to flying hours numbers as well.

 

Actually, I don't think there's a set number of years before planes are recycled. There's a lot of 40+ year old DC-8 and DC-9 flying around the world in relative safety. If you maintain the plane well, it'll fly virtually forever, but of course it's not cost effective. That's why planes become beer cans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoted from Liam's post in the Observation Hill subforum, with 9M-MKS which is leased from ILFC being surrendered, MH is now left with 9 A333s (all are owned by MH or PMB) and 3 A332s (all are leased from ILFC). Former A333 9M-MKR left for Brussels Airlines not too long ago.

 

A333

1. 9M-MKA

2. 9M-MKC

3. 9M-MKD

4. 9M-MKE

5. 9M-MKF

6. 9M-MKG

7. 9M-MKH

8. 9M-MKI

9. 9M-MKJ

 

A332

10. 9M-MKV

11. 9M-MKW

12. 9M-MKX

So, all the remaining A330-300s are owned and the A330-200s are leased. It'll be really interesting to see who MH/PMB can sell them off to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malaysia Airlines (MAS) (3786) is looking at possibly parking the two A330-200 freighters due for delivery next year in air cargo arm Malaysia Airlines Cargo Sdn Bhd's (MASkargo) balance sheet.

 

The move would bolster MASkargo's financial situation in the way of tax deductions and other benefits.

 

"We are looking at that quite closely. Whether it's in MAS or MASkargo, it doesn't matter as, operationally, it's exactly the same. It's more a financial standpoint. At the moment, we haven't finalised, but there is a possibility," MAS managing director and chief executive officer Tengku Datuk Azmil Zahruddin said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur.

 

One of the main hurdles to such an arrangement would be to secure financiers for the two planes should they be taken over by MASkargo.

 

"Financiers are used to financing MAS. So if you talk about MASkargo, they'll go like, 'Who's that?'. So that's some of the hurdles there," Tengku Azmil said.

The freighters are scheduled to be delivered towards the end of next year.

 

"We haven't finalised the financing process for those yet. So it (the decision on balance sheet to include the freighters) will happen before their financing is called," Tengku Azmil added.

 

MAS also has an option to take on another two A330-200F under its agreement with Airbus.

 

A decision on the option will have to be made by August next year.

 

Tengku Azmil said the long-term outlook for cargo in Asia is good, adding that he expects increasing cargo flows within Asia and between Asia and other points in Europe, the US, Australia and Africa.

 

"We do see cargo as a good market to be in and, in a sense, buying the aircraft is our commitment to the business."

 

MASkargo provides freighter services to Penang, Dubai, Basel, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Taipei, Osaka, Hong Kong, Sydney, Melbourne, Malpensa and Guangzhou.

 

It owns two Boeing 747-400F and leases four Boeing 747-200 freighter aircraft.

 

It also offers passenger belly space capacity, through parent MAS, to over 100 destinations across six continents.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/pjsm2/Article/index_html#ixzz0vQe2kQry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malaysia Airlines (MAS) (3786) is looking at possibly parking the two A330-200 freighters due for delivery next year in air cargo arm Malaysia Airlines Cargo Sdn Bhd's (MASkargo) balance sheet.

 

Source: http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/pjsm2/Article/index_html#ixzz0vQe2kQry

 

 

They should have worded it differently. My first glance through I thought they were parking those planes in the desert or something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Financiers are used to financing MAS. So if you talk about MASkargo, they'll go like, 'Who's that?'. So that's some of the hurdles there," Tengku Azmil said.

 

If MasKargo is an independent company without profit transfer, is financially healthier than Mas in the last few years.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why MAS should wait for A380

By EDY SARIF

edy@thestar.com.my

 

Its operating cost is lower than Boeing’s B777-300ER, says research house

 

PETALING JAYA: The operating cost of the Airbus A380 is lower than the Boeing B777-300ER regardless of Malaysia Airlines’ (MAS) frustration with incessant delivery delays, according to Maybank IB Research.

 

In a note yesterday, the research house said MAS might be frustrated with Airbus’ five-year long delay but its analysis of the A380’s operating cost against its rival Boeing B777-300ER explained MAS’ seemingly inexhaustible patience.

 

“The continuing delays are also partially beneficial to MAS as it has three 16-17-year-old B747-400s that are scheduled for heavy maintenance at around the same time that the new A380s are to be delivered,” it said.

 

It added that if MAS disposed of these older aircraft, it could even be earnings accretive as it had already fully provided for the maintenance checks in 2012.

 

“Further, the B777-300ER is a mature aircraft (first into service in 2004) whose value could plummet if the A350 enters service in 2015, as Airbus hopes,” it said, adding that the A380 would serve London, Amsterdam and Sydney, it said.

 

 

Not only is the operating cost of the A380 lower than the Boeing B777-300 ER, its sheer size has many advantages. – AFP

 

“Our cost analysis confirms the A380 as the superior aircraft for long-haul flights to London and Amsterdam. However, for medium-haul flights such as to Sydney, the B777-300ER has a fighting chance,” Maybank IB Research said.

 

The B777-300ER may still work if cabin passenger comfort is compromised (smaller seats). On long-haul flights, MAS will have to fit in 345 seats to match the A380’s unit cost.

 

“This will be a very dense seating configuration by MAS’ standards as its two benchmark (of Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Cathay Pacific) would then be 24% and 15% less dense than MAS’ stretch configuration,” it said, adding that, interestingly, Emirates did not match SIA or Cathay’s generosity in cabin comforts, which was something MAS should consider.

 

It further said the A380’s sheer size commanded many advantages.

 

“It has the highest structural payload (the sum of the passenger and cargo weight that the aircraft is able to carry). Secondly, the A380 can complete the long-haul mission (London and Amsterdam) without sacrificing its payload. The B747-400 and B777-300ER, on the other hand, have to sacrifice valuable payload in order to carry more fuel to complete the mission,” it said.

 

But, for shorter distances like Sydney, both the B747-400 and the B777-300ER would be able to complete the mission with a maximum structural payload, it said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SQ has already reported a 16% lower operating cost on the A380 (per seat). So this is nothing new. Analysts were slow to pick up the facts!

 

Actually what I would like to see is total cost of ownership numbers. MH's old (but lower capital cost) B744s vs new (but high capital cost) A380s. Will the B744's lower capital (or leasing) costs be able to ameliorate the higher fuel and maintenance costs?

 

At the end of the day, total costs of ownership will show on the bottom line. The A380 will cost more to buy while MH's old B744s may already be paid for or substantially paid for. The A380 will also cost more to run, if pax load factors is insufficient to cover the higher running costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“It has the highest structural payload (the sum of the passenger and cargo weight that the aircraft is able to carry). Secondly, the A380 can complete the long-haul mission (London and Amsterdam) without sacrificing its payload. The B747-400 and B777-300ER, on the other hand, have to sacrifice valuable payload in order to carry more fuel to complete the mission,” it said.

True or not o ? :rolleyes:

Wonder where these 'analysts' get their juicy bits from ? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never knew A380 is better economically than B77W. I know A380 is better than B747, but I thought B77W will be economically competitive with A380.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True or not o ? :rolleyes:

Wonder where these 'analysts' get their juicy bits from ? :)

 

Yeah, that was the first thing that popped in my head. I always thought 77W had the best cargo/payload ability amongst all WB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SQ has already reported a 16% lower operating cost on the A380 (per seat). So this is nothing new. Analysts were slow to pick up the facts!

 

Actually what I would like to see is total cost of ownership numbers. MH's old (but lower capital cost) B744s vs new (but high capital cost) A380s. Will the B744's lower capital (or leasing) costs be able to ameliorate the higher fuel and maintenance costs?

 

At the end of the day, total costs of ownership will show on the bottom line. The A380 will cost more to buy while MH's old B744s may already be paid for or substantially paid for. The A380 will also cost more to run, if pax load factors is insufficient to cover the higher running costs.

 

The above cost is an issue , particularly amongst accountants !, What most failed in this industry is the fact that this is very competitive and a forward thinking products ( comprising attractive fares, meals, comfort and amenities) will likely campture the greatest rewards. Specifically, investments of products should be consistently be carried out all the way from those little things like choice of drinks, hot towels to the aircraft itself. I'm sure none of us would like to still be on a 1986 Proton Saga taxi for the same fare as say the new 2010 Saga. Would you?

 

Insufficient load, is not a good excuse and this is specifically on Marketing strategy; of course the abovesaid amenities do help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True or not o ? :rolleyes:

Wonder where these 'analysts' get their juicy bits from ? :)

 

Well according to Wikipedia, the 77W pax version can fly 7,900++nm with full load, while the cargo version can carry full load up to 4,800++nm. But how the heck did they come to the conclusion that the A380's much more economical than the 777F when they don't have an A380F even in production?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above cost is an issue , particularly amongst accountants !,

Yes I guess accountants know that if you run out of cashflow, you run out of business i.e. close shop. End of story!

 

That is one of the reasons why CX ordered the A350s - economics was better than the A380s.

 

Well according to Wikipedia, the 77W pax version can fly 7,900++nm with full load, while the cargo version can carry full load up to 4,800++nm. But how the heck did they come to the conclusion that the A380's much more economical than the 777F when they don't have an A380F even in production?

I think they were referring to belly cargo and not full freighter configurations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to Wikipedia, the 77W pax version can fly 7,900++nm with full load, .....

 

LHR-KUL is 5729nm according to various google search results

That would be quite comfortable for the 77W then

Even for MH's 744 (PW driven) at 7284nm range

 

So, can we conclude Edy Sarif and his band of 'analysts' were skewing their report to accomodate the headline ? Or more likely, just plain misinformed ? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking to someone and it was mentioned that this could have been a tactic by Maybank to justify a previous decision to NOT finance MH's aircraft buys, thus coming up with stories that MH shouldn't look at other aircraft other than A380.

 

Slim chance of actually being the truth, but a thought nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were referring to belly cargo and not full freighter configurations.

 

Doh! When I saw payload I immediately assume it's a freighter. But the analyst may have a point there. The 77W is a mature aircraft. Shouldn't MAS focus on next-gen planes? Is the fact that the waiting list for the 787 and A350 are quite long a factor in deciding?

Edited by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe the wait is one of the biggest factors as to why MH is looking at the 77W.

 

But come on, the aircraft became operational in 2004..!! Is it already supposed to be "old"?

 

A330 was operational in 1994 yet tweaks here and there have made the plane very much useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SQ has already reported a 16% lower operating cost on the A380 (per seat). So this is nothing new. Analysts were slow to pick up the facts!

 

Actually what I would like to see is total cost of ownership numbers. MH's old (but lower capital cost) B744s vs new (but high capital cost) A380s. Will the B744's lower capital (or leasing) costs be able to ameliorate the higher fuel and maintenance costs?

 

At the end of the day, total costs of ownership will show on the bottom line. The A380 will cost more to buy while MH's old B744s may already be paid for or substantially paid for. The A380 will also cost more to run, if pax load factors is insufficient to cover the higher running costs.

 

According to SQ; A380 operating cost is less than 3% higher than 744 means CASM of A380 is about 20% lower than 744. Any profitable 744 route justify A380 deployment.

 

If 744 is not profitable on a particular route, 77W is unlikely to be profitable either.

 

If MH’s demand is the issue, either MH need attract more pax or limit the biggest aircraft to 772/A33E size.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I guess accountants know that if you run out of cashflow, you run out of business i.e. close shop. End of story!

 

 

One must not forget, if too much being focused on $$$$$$ without considering "What Makes people choose you to fly?" and "What makes u better than others for me to fly with u?" If the product s**** , there will not be any passengers at all! and it will still close shop!

 

In this case a balance in $$$$ and product offerings is highly essential.

 

As said so many times and recognised by a few forward thinkers here , spending a bit more on $$$$$ would translate for a sustainable future and higher $$$$ returns.

 

In this case, if MH desires for 380s , the question here is What makes these MH 380s special than other 380s and worth waiting for?; ........which would make one really want to be on, despite the delays and glitches.

Edited by Ruiz Razy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to SQ; A380 operating cost is less than 3% higher than 744 means CASM of A380 is about 20% lower than 744. Any profitable 744 route justify A380 deployment.

 

If 744 is not profitable on a particular route, 77W is unlikely to be profitable either.

 

If MH’s demand is the issue, either MH need attract more pax or limit the biggest aircraft to 772/A33E size.

 

:drinks:

I think SQ is not too bothered with the B744 as they are all due to be retired. They are more interested in comparing it with the B77W. So far they are convinced that the A380 is the right way to go and they never sell A380 seats at their discount price levels. A380 Load factors are above fleet average too.

 

One must not forget, if too much being focused on $$$$$$ without considering "What Makes people choose you to fly?" and "What makes u better than others for me to fly with u?" If the product s**** , there will not be any passengers at all! and it will still close shop!

 

In this case a balance in $$$$ and product offerings is highly essential.

 

As said so many times and recognised by a few forward thinkers here , spending a bit more on $$$$$ would translate for a sustainable future and higher $$$$ returns.

 

In this case, if MH desires for 380s , the question here is What makes these MH 380s special than other 380s and worth waiting for?; ........which would make one really want to be on, despite the delays and glitches.

Of course, if your airline is in a healthy state (which MH isn't), they can think of the finer points. But right now they are trying to get their basic products updated and they need to do it rather urgently as most of their fleet consists of creaky old aircraft. Hence they need aircraft with fast delivery times. They cannot afford to wait too long as passengers, like you said, will choose to fly with other airlines.

 

As the CEO has already said, they will look at more widebodies and make a further decision by year's end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think SQ is not too bothered with the B744 as they are all due to be retired. They are more interested in comparing it with the B77W. So far they are convinced that the A380 is the right way to go and they never sell A380 seats at their discount price levels. A380 Load factors are above fleet average too.

 

Hmmmm, MH has missed the opportunity to make some extra bucks :(

Edited by KK Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think SQ is not too bothered with the B744 as they are all due to be retired. They are more interested in comparing it with the B77W. So far they are convinced that the A380 is the right way to go and they never sell A380 seats at their discount price levels. A380 Load factors are above fleet average too.

I am not sure about this though... I bought my KUL-NRT return with SQ for RM1800 (which converts to roughly AUD$600) and that is an A380 route. Not sure if that is a sweet deal for Malaysian market only. They have been offering special deals for A380 flights out of MEL too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...