Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sing Yew

Give us Sydney, not Pyongyang, says AirAsia X

Recommended Posts

im not understand to be honest..now who disturd who?mh or airasia x..i cant understand why AAX want to fly to sydney? so many place to fly why sydney..AAX stop disturb MH destination.. :finger:

 

AK X is just want to take advantage of increasing demand of Aussies visiting this country by offering them non-stop flights to Malaysia rather than channeling them through SIN or even BKK. It seems that MAS do not take the chance of increasing opportunity of increasing frequency for SYD-KUL route. So, AK is offering extra capacity.

 

I am truly not surprise if I met some Aussies in Malaysia and asking them how they come here, and they reply 'via Singapore'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

................

 

“The funny thing, the absolute irony is, the absolute irony – do you know where Malaysia Airlines is strongest?” said Azran. “It is domestic and Asean where they have the most competition from AirAsia. Look at their financial results. They are most profitable in domestic and Asean.”

 

.................

 

 

 

Azran must be snorting some serious stuff over there or is this am attempt to insult our intelligence. 100% unadulterated muck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azran must be snorting some serious stuff over there or is this am attempt to insult our intelligence. 100% unadulterated muck.

100%? I beg to differ - I can at least confirm what he said about KUL-BKI is absolutely true. Before AK, frequencies were lower and fares were higher.

 

And here is another traveller's experience (Malaysian Insider comment):

 

i agree. competition produces efficiency.

 

before AirAsia fly Bangkok, the price does not make sense, that i flew only once a month.

the service on MAS was below par that sometimes i flew SIA via Changi just to go to Bangkok.

nowadays, the service on MAS is much better that i never flew SIA once.

 

the competition forced MAS to offer more reasonable prices and upgrade their services, that now i find it hard to not fly with MAS. And i fly every other week.

 

as a businessman i also agree with the chap that connectivity plays important role in business decision.

 

my company has on many occasions decided against expanding our business in sydney because of the connectivity issues. once we decided to expand in vietnam due to AirAsia flying there. we never flew AirAsia but that reason indirectly give MAS a few more passengers per week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AK X is just want to take advantage of increasing demand of Aussies visiting this country by offering them non-stop flights to Malaysia rather than channeling them through SIN or even BKK. It seems that MAS do not take the chance of increasing opportunity of increasing frequency for SYD-KUL route. So, AK is offering extra capacity.

 

I am truly not surprise if I met some Aussies in Malaysia and asking them how they come here, and they reply 'via Singapore'...

 

...via Singapore could be by QF, not necessarily by SQ. My employer, when she wants to travel, her travel agent always put her on SQ or QF flight, which usually via Singapore. Even when she went to BKK, she transit at Sinagpore, means she did not take TG at all.

 

 

I don't understand with Air Asia as well. Why they keep bringing this thing up? Not that Msian gov will approve their SYD application anyway. It's better to concentrate with what they have and stop whinging.

KUL is not a major transit point like SIN, BKK or HKG. It's not going to work if more than one airline serve the route. If pax want to use Air Asia, they can do so via MEL and PER. That's what the budget concious people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not understand to be honest..now who disturd who?mh or airasia x..i cant understand why AAX want to fly to sydney? so many place to fly why sydney..AAX stop disturb MH destination.. :finger:

 

must be another MAS die-hard! LOL!

 

on another note, this is going to just be another issue, just like the rights to fly into Singapore. i believe in his struggle, and eventually will get it no matter who says what. just like how they think they can develope this route, there were many other routes that was started and blossomed! and yes, nobody needed MH to help out on those routes. if they're going to sit and hold back the rights to let azran fly in there, then good for you MOT because you, and many other politicians in this country are just like the frog who sat under a coconut shell and refused to get out. to protect an airline or to protect the tourism industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would their departure time ex SYD be like if they do indeed get the route? CTMS and slots would be their next headache. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand with Air Asia as well. Why they keep bringing this thing up? Not that Msian gov will approve their SYD application anyway. It's better to concentrate with what they have and stop whinging.

KUL is not a major transit point like SIN, BKK or HKG. It's not going to work if more than one airline serve the route. If pax want to use Air Asia, they can do so via MEL and PER. That's what the budget concious people do.

Why do they keep bringing this up? D7 applied for rights to fly into SYD in 2009. The MoT has dragged its feet on this application. The AirAsia Group are quite used to this kind of inactivity by MoT. That is why they highlight it on the media from time to time.

 

While KUL is currently not a major transit point (for business travel, at least) the AirAsia Group airlines (AK, D7, FD and QZ) are trying hard to establish their ASEAN network of hubs. They have a bigger picture to look at and they want to make ALL ASEAN capitals major transit points. They are not waiting for governments to invite airlines - they are trying to do it themselves because they think that it is a win-win situation for the country, airport and airline.

 

D7 meanwhile is not sitting still even when SYD is not approved. They have increased frequencies to both PER and MEL to double daily. They have increased frequencies to TPE and they are launching services into India soon. So D7 is basically doing what most well run businesses should be doing - fire on ALL cylinders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes i wonder why ye olde Dato Tony F can't have a quick chat with the PM over this matter and solve it once and for all....

 

Dato Tony F seems to be hitting all the right notes with everything else he does and certainly works around with people not at my level..

 

Just a thot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...via Singapore could be by QF, not necessarily by SQ. My employer, when she wants to travel, her travel agent always put her on SQ or QF flight, which usually via Singapore. Even when she went to BKK, she transit at Sinagpore, means she did not take TG at all.

 

I don't understand with Air Asia as well. Why they keep bringing this thing up? Not that Msian gov will approve their SYD application anyway. It's better to concentrate with what they have and stop whinging. KUL is not a major transit point like SIN, BKK or HKG. It's not going to work if more than one airline serve the route. If pax want to use Air Asia, they can do so via MEL and PER. That's what the budget concious people do.

Your comment supports Azran's claim. Your boss is one of the 'leakage' that Azran is so emphasizing about. Why doesn't she fly MH?

 

In addition to what flee has responded to you, we must remember that D7's application to SYD and ICN was first rejected by the government using AK's outstanding debt with MAHB as the reason, which Azran might interpret as 'it has anything to do with D7, I am a victim'. Now when the debt has been settled, the government is still not granting the right to D7. If I were Azran, I will be pretty pissed off.

 

We are all aware that D7 is going to receive 3 (?) A333s this year. 'To concentrate with what they have and stop whining'? D7 is concentrating with what they have and what they want. They are not whining. They are frustrated with the double standard and short sighted treatments that the government gave them. Isn't that so obvious?

 

You said 'KUL is not a major transit point like SIN, BKK or HKG' which I think is why D7 plays an important role here because the carrier has better chance to lure those price conscious travellers than MH. The big picture here to get the tourism money flows into Malaysia, through both MH and D7.

 

It has been proved in so many countries that competition is the way for betterment, not only in the aviation industry but in so many of our daily activities. I am so surprised that you are suggesting otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem like whenever Air Asia want something, they ask for it in a very rude way?

 

Though I guess if they weren't this way, the Govt wouldn't listen, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem like whenever Air Asia want something, they ask for it in a very rude way?

 

Though I guess if they weren't this way, the Govt wouldn't listen, eh?

 

I agree. That's what I don't like with Air Asia. They prefer to be on the front page, telling the world they are unfairly treated by Malaysia Govt.

The price concious Aussie travellers normally go to Bali and Phuket because it is much cheaper than coming to Malaysia. The budget concious I am talking about is Malaysian students or Malaysians. They can always fly through PER or MEL. Not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have seen this before and even participated in the thread.

 

I would like to share this Australia-based survey. http://www.choice.com.au/Reviews-and-Tests/Travel-and-Transport/Travel/Airline-travel/Airline-satisfaction-survey/Page/International%20airline%20survey.aspx

 

Australians ranked MH:

- 7th for flights from Australia to the UK

- 2nd for flights from Australia to Italy

- 2nd for flights from Australia to Malaysia (SQ was voted 1st, D7 4th)

- 2nd for flights from Australia to Vietnam

 

MH was not preferred for flights from Australia to Bali/Indonesia and Thailand, where D7 was ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively.

Based on this survey, D7/AK was ranked 2nd and 3rd for flights from Australia to Bali/Indonesia and Thailand. For these 2 destinations, MH was not preferred at all. The Australians don't mind the backtracking. These are the markets that D7/AK want to capture, not just point-to-point from SYD to KUL but beyond KUL to all other destinations in AK/QZ/FD's network as a whole. They want to create a hub in KUL and they have what it takes. They want to take those tourism monies away from that Singaporean airline which MH can never ever match. Aren't we fed up of seeing SQ leading almost every single flight category to all routes, even for flights between Australia and Malaysia? Malaysian airlines failed at their own home base to SQ. It's very shameful.

 

AK/D7 has the chance of becoming so big, even bigger than Ryanair or Southwest but it seems to me that they don't get enough support to grow at their intended speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100%? I beg to differ - I can at least confirm what he said about KUL-BKI is absolutely true. Before AK, frequencies were lower and fares were higher.

 

.....

 

I do suggest that you read the statement from Azran again. Here let me refresh your memory.

 

“The funny thing, the absolute irony is, the absolute irony – do you know where Malaysia Airlines is strongest?” said Azran. “It is domestic and Asean where they have the most competition from AirAsia. Look at their financial results. They are most profitable in domestic and Asean.”

 

Please refer to the underlined statement. I know for a fact that MH is not profitable in Domestic and the routes where they are operating together with AK. This fact is contrary to Azran's statement. For an intelligent person to make such statement is an insult to the intelligence of many, including myself.

 

Your statement of the increased frequencies and lower prices of the KUL-BKI sector after AK seems to also contradict what Azran is saying.

 

Please add some intelligence in your argument, dont argue for the sake of arguing. I do suggest you following the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely from paying passengers' view:

 

In 2002, the full-fare return Y-class ticket for KUL-BKI sector is MYR874+TAX. Cheaper option is YEE30 fare which is priced at MYR689+TAX. If I'm not mistaken, YN flight fare is in between the full-fare & the YEE30 fare. And of course, at that time, MH is the only carrier plying the route.

 

Post AK entry for the SZB-BKI and later KUL-BKI route, let's look at both AK&MH ticket price for the sector. I believe it's always and always lower than the cheapest YEE30 fare of RM689+TAX.

 

Form consumers' point of view, we want better options and value for money for the services. Deregulation opens up competition, lower down prices and provides better services to consumer. We ain't EU, thus both competitors are local-born company. That's a relief, or don't they?

 

My 2 cents view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep your point civilize, no need for name calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those who are against Air Asia;s growth are actually against the countrys aviation and tourism growth and dont want to KLIA as hub of any sort. They prefer to be remain as a laughing stock of SIngapore and Bangkok ( they call KLIA a white elephant),Shame on you guys.. IN short :

 

Tepuk air di dulang, kena muka sendiri

 

 

Secondly MAS was losing money before air asia came about and is still losing money today,nothing different. Its just the way the airline is being runned, Nothing to do with Air Asia or Singapore Airlines or blame others,lets face the fact. There are 52 airines flying out of Sydney and if it is 53 there will be no difference, because ALL OF THEM ARE COMPETITORS TO MH,not only Air Asia. And that is the way they have to view it. SO what Should they do? one word IMPROVE,improve your cabin products.

 

Thirdly look at MH domestic booking system now and before Air asia was born. Now they fill their planes because they followed AA's booking, as the plane fills up tickets become more expensive. Assuming if AA wasnt even born many of you wont be able to afford the domestic fares as they would be to expensive on MH and even then MH will be sucking up tax payers money by saying they are losing a lot of money on domestic run.I wonder why no other airline loses money on domestic runs only MH, year after year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Air Asia for kicking the but of MH and forcing them to improve in every aspect.Improved booking system,improved advertising,improved products (soon), even creating firefly with brand new planes. Allthanks to AA.

 

fourth, MH is not confident at all of them selves. If they were they couldnt care less of Air Asia flying to SYD. Why worry? MH will have the best equipment on that run,A380 (provided they dont cock up with smarties seats and I have full faith that they will not only get it right this time but it will turn the attention of the world to them like they did with the 777 special livery) and the best service and that alone will be a pulling power for people to fly MH on kangaroo route,pax will choose MH over even SQ or QF,so Air Asia wont even be a competitor to them,no where near.

 

But one black cloud that looms is FFP. MH has to joinsome allaince like OW otherwise other wise they should name their enrich as enpoor FFP,because that is why many overseas customers shy away from MH.

 

Lastly MH should get a group of aviation enthusiast (Like malaysia wings forum) and poll on the shortlisted cabin interiors and see which one is the most popular. They will get all the pro's and con's from us and that data then can be used as an added tool in their final decision on cabin interiors,mainly seat covers.

Edited by jadivindra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH responds: AirAsiaX only interested in our routes says Malaysia Airlines

 

KUALA LUMPUR, May 1 — Malaysia Airlines has come out to defend itself against claims that it has become a stumbling block to greater air connectivity and does not welcome competition.

 

This comes as AirAsiaX has expressed disappointment over not being granted rights to fly to Sydney and other key global cities and cited government efforts to protect Malaysia Airlines as one of the reasons.

 

In a statement to the media , Malaysia Airlines CEO Tengku Azmil Zahruddin said that new routes require heavy investment which AirAsiaX is not willing to bear.

 

“AirAsiaX have applied and been granted the rights to fly to many cities which they are not exercising,” said Tengku Azmil. “These cities include Amritsar, Cheongju, Pusan, Tianjin, Xian, Bahrain, Sharjah, Berlin, Manchester, Dublin, Vienna and Moscow.”

 

He added that AirAsiaX is not keen to operate to these new destinations as they are well aware that it takes years of investment to make a route profitable and that Malaysia Airlines often incurs losses for between one and five years to develop awareness in new destinations and spends RM100 million annually on marketing in

 

Australia.

 

“If AirAsiaX is really serious about “choices for the people”, they will fly to destinations where they have the rights to,” he said. “But the reality is that AirAsiaX is only interested in MAS’ routes. Is this then in the best interest of the country?”

 

He also disputed AirAsiaX’s claim that 80,000 people flew to Sydney from KL indirectly saying that according to data collated by the International Air Transport Association, only 2,848 passengers flew from KL to Sydney indirect in 2009 and 2,359 so far in 2010.

 

Tengku Azmil also questioned whether AirAsiaX has really been given the right to fly to Seoul saying that there has been no official government announcement made.

 

He also said that Malaysia Airlines welcomes competition and called for a new aviation policy to ensure KL becomes a regional hub on par with Bangkok and Singapore and where local airlines were treated equally and “with consideration given in view of what is best for the country. “

 

“For the record, we have been competing with various global, full service carriers for the past 60 years, and competition is not new to MAS,” he said.

 

In an interview with The Malaysian Insider this week, AirAsiaX CEO Azran Osman Rani said that he was told not to “disturb” Malaysia Airlines and was asked to fly to 34 cities which he did not consider economically viable including Pyongyang, North Korea and Mahe, Seychelles.

 

He also said that KL was strategically behind cities such as Bangkok and Singapore which offered greater connectivity to key global cities such as Seoul and Sydney and asked that AirAsiaX be allowed to fly the routes as the competition would grow the market.

 

Compete and collaborate to achieve what is best for Malaysia — Tengku Azmil Zahruddin

 

MAY 1 — AirAsiaX has been lobbying their cause aggressively in the media locally and abroad to fly to destinations operated by MAS. On the surface, their argument appears logical: Open up Sydney, Seoul, etc, as that is best for the country.

 

There are two sides to any argument and I would like to take this opportunity to put forward the MAS point of view.

 

A bit of history: Under the domestic rationalisation exercise in March 2006, MAS was asked to give up the operations of the rural areas in Sabah/ Sarawak and hand these off to AirAsia.

 

MAS was awarded 19 trunk routes to operate and AirAsia was granted both the trunk and non trunk routes (about 96 routes). AirAsia subcontracted non trunk routes to its wholly-owned subsidiary, FAX.

 

FAX operated the service from Sept 2006 to Sept 2007. There were countless complaints about the unreliability of their services which severely and negatively impacted communities, tourism and businesses in Sabah and Sarawak.

 

The Government asked MAS to take back the rural air services and MAS’ wholly-owned subsdiary, MASwings, took over on 1 October 2007. During that one year of FAX’s operation, they were paid more than double what MASwings receives today for the same scope of services over the past 2 years.

 

FAX was subsequently renamed AirAsiaX.

 

In just some 3 years of operations after dumping the rural air services, AirAsiaX has obtained rights for 9 routes: London, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Mumbai, New Delhi, Taipei, Beijing and Shanghai.

 

Recently, AirAsiaX announced that they have been given rights to fly to Seoul. But to date, there has been no Government announcement. Recently, again, AirAsiaX was granted the rights to fly to Male, and the rights were transferred to AirAsia.

 

Excluding the rights to fly to Seoul and Male — assuming this is official — 90 per cent of AirAsiaX’s routes overlap with those operated by MAS. On the other hand, only 17 per cent of Tiger,

 

Singapore Airlines and SilkAir’s routes overlap.

 

We will stand up and be counted. Yes, MAS lobbies the Government. So do AirAsia and AirAsiaX. As an airline, we have transformed and we are fighting for our rights, as is AirAsia and AirAsiaX.

 

Let me outline our viewpoints and why we stand behind the facts — not blind accusations — that we presented to the Government:

 

1. Real choices for Malaysians — New destinations from Kuala Lumpur

 

What makes Suvarnabhumi and Changi great hubs is that these airports provide customers with many choices in terms of destinations.

 

Some 93 airlines operate out of Suvarnabhumi to over 187 cities in 71 countries. About 85 carriers operate from Changi to more than 200 cities in 60 countries.

 

On the other hand, some 50 airlines operate from KLIA to 100 cities in 44 countries.

 

What makes Changi a good hub is the number of destinations they offer. This gives consumers greater choice.

 

For example, someone who wants to fly to Moscow will have to go via Changi as there are no airlines flying to Moscow directly from KLIA.

 

If someone from Melbourne wants to fly to Moscow, they are likely to go via, say Changi, and not KLIA. AirAsiaX can fly 10 times a day to Melbourne, and this passenger is still more likely to use Changi.

 

If AirAsiaX is serious about providing customers “with choices”, they should fly to new destinations. There are 34 new destinations or more which currently do not have direct flights from Kuala Lumpur. All these destinations are within the range of AirAsiaX’s A330-300s.

 

AirAsiaX has been lobbying the Malaysia Government saying that they deserve to get the rights to fly to any destination because they have bought so many aircraft.

 

Yet, they are not willing to consider any of these 34 cities because they claim that these cities do not make economic sense.

 

Amongst the 34 cities are Fukuoka and Nagoya in Japan, and Chongqing in China. All these routes are operated by both Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific. Singapore Airlines also operates to Ahmadabad in India and Cairo in Egypt.

 

One of the destinations which the Transport Ministry lists as being granted to AirAsiaX includes Paris/Orly. Interestingly, AirAsiaX’s CEO, Azran told MalaysianInsider in an interview dated 28 April 2010, “It (the rights) has yet to land on my desk. Until it does, we cannot initiate detailed plans”.

 

If their argument is that they do not have planes or the correct aircraft, AirAsiaX has 2 A340s which has a 12-hour flying range. They can also operate the A330s with one stop in the Middle East.

 

In addition, AirAsiaX have applied and been granted the rights to fly to many cities which they are not exercising. These cities include Amritsar, Cheongju, Pusan, Tianjin, Xian, Bahrain, Sharjah, Berlin, Manchester, Dublin, Vienna and Moscow.

 

AirAsiaX is not keen to operate to these new destinations as they are well aware that it takes years of investment to make a route profitable.

 

Case in point is Abu Dhabi. Singapore Airlines flies to Abu Dhabi. Yet, AirAsiaX pulled out from Abu Dhabi after just 3 months in operation, citing that the route is not profitable.

 

When MAS flies to a new route, we are likely to incur losses in the first year up to the first five years as we spend money to develop awareness in the new destination and expand the market. This is an investment we are prepared to make, as short term losses can result in long term profits. In the long run, it is good for the country and gives consumers more choice.

 

For example, for the past 20 years, we invested tens of millions. Even today, we invest some RM100 million annually in marketing costs alone in Australia.

 

If AirAsiaX is really serious about “choices for the people”, they will fly to destinations where they have the rights to. But the reality is that AirAsiaX is only interested in MAS’ routes. Is this then in the best interest of the country?

 

For the record, we have been competing with various global, full service carriers for the past 60 years, and competition is not new to MAS.

 

We welcome competition as it means that we have to constantly transform ourselves — which is what we have been doing intensely in the past 4 years.

 

Let us also set the record straight on the information that AirAsiaX has been providing to the media to support their claim to fly to Sydney and Seoul.

 

Azran claimed in his interview with MalaysianInsider that, “…some 80,000 Malaysians were flying to Sydney indirect.”

 

Paxis data (collated by the International Air Transport Association) which captures all full service airline transactions show that in 2009, only 2,848 passengers travelled from Kuala Lumpur to Sydney via Singapore. In 2010, the number is reduced to only 2,359. It would be good if AirAsiaX can substantiate their allegations.

 

For Seoul, Azran claimed, “…We should see a reversal of the trend of negative growth in 2009 to a positive growth in 2011….” on the assumption that AirAsiaX will fly to Seoul.

 

For the first 3 months of 2010, tourist arrivals from Korea grew by 26 per cent compared to the same period in 2009. MAS’ passenger growth was up 48 per cent. The trend is already strongly positive.

 

2. Real benefits to Malaysia — Increasing tourist arrivals & boosting tourism industry

 

Both MAS and AirAsiaX bring in tourists to the country. Tourism studies indicate that there is a 12X multiplier effect to the country.

 

This year, we expect to fly in 5.5 million passengers. We expect this to generate some RM12.7 billion of tourism dollars for the country.

 

However, most of AirAsiaX’s passengers are in transit. For example, AirAsiaX have said that 80 per cent of their Australian passengers on AirAsiaX self-connect to other destinations after arriving in Kuala Lumpur.

 

In other words, while AirAsiaX increases traffic into the country, most of their passengers transit in Kuala Lumpur to other destinations.

 

Although this makes the arrivals figures look higher, these passengers may not spend much money in Malaysia. This means less economic value to the country.

 

However, if AirAsiaX operates to new destinations, and invests in promoting Malaysia, it will go a long way to attract tourists from different countries and boost tourism in Malaysia.

 

In July 2008, when we met the Minister of Transport when he first came in as Minister, we proposed a clear framework for the aviation sector. This framework will involve airlines, airports as well as a range of services to airlines and airports, MRO (Maintenance, Repair & Operation) and catering. The sector contributes about 4 per cent to Malaysian GDP. Beyond its direct contributions to the economy, the aviation sector is a key enabler of tourism and commerce.

 

It is never too late to start. Malaysia needs a clear aviation policy — one that offers real choices to consumers and that benefits the country. It must be a long term, comprehensive and impartial policy that will ensure that the country and rakyat takes precedence.

 

One that will ensure that KLIA becomes a regional hub, on par with Changi and Suvarnabhumi and that all local airlines — MAS, Firefly, AirAsia and AirAsiaX — are given equal treatment, with consideration given in view of what is best for the country.

 

At the time we made the proposal, AirAsia was not advocating this. I am glad that they now think that this is a good idea.

 

The winner should not be the one who shouts the loudest in the media.

 

Nor lobby the hardest. We need to learn to compete and collaborate, and work with the Government to achieve the nation’s aspirations.

 

* Tengku Dato’ Azmil Zahruddin is Managing Director/ Chief Executive Officer of Malaysia Airlines.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Azran is tweeting:

 

its sad when they hv to resort to points not based on facts. We've open up lots of new markets. Just ask Tourism Malaysia

 

Flights only sustainable when enough people want to fly there.

 

the only diff in cherry-picking btw us and the airline that pulled out of New York, Manchester, Vienna etc etc, is decisiveness

 

Its silly to play a he-says, she-says game. Want to know the real stats on tourism growth vs transit, just look at Airport n Tourism data.

 

Beautiful day in Kota Kinabalu. Many Aussies flying on AirAsia X and then flying here for Borneo Marathon n Sabah Fest. Transit pax???

 

hmm i dont know who to believe, but azran sounds deceiving and greedy.

Of course, each side has its own points and focus. MH is a govt. department and works at that kind of pace. D7 is a commercial enterprise and cannot afford to wait for things to happen. They have to make things happen for themselves. Otherwise they will go out of business.

 

Whatever it is, I am sure that all this is good for consumers, even those who do not travel on LCCs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collaboration between MH and AK will result in duopoly like MH/SQ on KUL/SIN previously, reduced frequency and increased fare :angry: :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt FAX's handling of the RAS has come back to haunt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt FAX's handling of the RAS has come back to haunt them.

Time to move on - MASWings returned to do a great job and the aviation industry is dynamic. The environment has changed and players also need to change. D7 does not have deep pockets nor taxpayer money to bail them out should they make losses. They have to work hard for their success. Lobbying the govt. is part of that hard work, unfortunately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do feel that there's some truth and logical explaination from the MH Dato' CEO ; A Comprehensive Civil Aviation Masterplan Policy is rather essential. Not just merely in awarding routes but to further question critical issues including relating to our tourism sector, types of tourists, GDP, Foreign Exchange, Jobs ....etc. ;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...