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

Give us Sydney, not Pyongyang, says AirAsia X

Recommended Posts

Minister OTK is still stalling on the issue:

 

Meanwhile, he urged airlines not to dispute over the flight paths and to leave the matter to the government.

 

"I think this kind of dispute should be avoided. What should be our main target is improvng the quality of our services, and to me the biggest challenge in providing public air service is on-time performance.

 

"Airlines should stay focused on enhancing their level of on-time performance...the quality of service. If we can do that, we go a step higher in service excellence," he said.

 

Source: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=495976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minister should also worry about his own on-time performance. AirAsia X's application for the KUL-SYD route has been in his in tray for a year already!

 

The government has been even-handed enough in catering to Malaysian airlines' needs, says the Transport Minister who down the call for a national aviation policy to regulate the industry

 

Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has shot down Malaysian airlines' call for a national aviation policy to regulate the industry, saying that existing guidelines are sufficient.

 

"I see no reason why our home-grown airlines need to engage in this kind of verbal exchange.

 

"We (government) know what we are doing, and have been handling this (the award of traffic rights), through our rules and regulations. We have been even-handed enough in catering to their needs," Ong told reporters after a working visit to Express Rail Link Sdn Bhd's (ERLSB) maintenance depot in Salak Tinggi, Selangor, yesterday.

 

Malaysia Airlines and AirAsia have been having a public battle of words over "popular" routes, with both taking their fight to the media.

The national carrier feels that some routes should not be given to the budget carrier, while AirAsia insists that it should not be blocked from getting any routes it wants.

 

Both airlines, however, called for a definitive aviation policy framework, which clearly states the direction of the local aviation industry.

 

Currently the rights to award traffic rights to airlines are solely at the discretion of the government, leaving it open to "abuses".

 

Ong also gave both airlines a dressing down, saying they should stay focused on enhancing their level of on-time performance and quality of their services.

 

He said sometimes he gets a lot of complaints from the public about on-time performance of the airlines.

 

"I have been monitoring on-time performance almost every month. We have issued our concern (on the matter) in writing to the (airline) operators," Ong said.

 

Meanwhile, on whether plans for the Express Rail Link (ERL) to be extended to the new low-cost carrier terminal are going ahead, Ong said the government wants to make life easier for passengers.

 

"We have to address the financial concerns of the project, as we are dealing with a private entity (ERL). We are now looking to see how we are going to come up with a solution," he said.

 

It is understood that both Malaysia Airports Holdings Bhd and AirAsia Bhd are unwilling to foot the bill for the development of the track to the low-cost carrier terminal.

 

Ong yesterday congratulated ERLSB for achieving an average on-time performance of 99.7 per cent, saying that local airlines should follow the example.

 

Read more: Airlines' call doesn't fly http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/paf1/Article/index_html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would :pardon:

 

quote name='Y. J. Foo' date='28 April 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1272448209' post='254819']

Speaking of North Korea, anyone ever thought of going there? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would :pardon:

 

quote name='Y. J. Foo' date='28 April 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1272448209' post='254819']

Speaking of North Korea, anyone ever thought of going there? :lol:

 

they(D7) always mentioned about the unpopular destinations they received such as North Korea,almaty,ashgabat,etc...but among these,they are some popular destinations such as darwin,nagoya,fukuoka,moscow,manchester, and berlin...why D7 still doesnt want to fly to these routes?our neighbours both at the south(singapore) and north(bangkok) have all these destinations. If D7 is 'keen' to make KLIA as a hub,they should fly to those routes which have been approved to them.The result is,KLIA would get connected to 34 new destinations worldwide....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point - I think D7 are just prioritising their routes as they do not have the planes to service all the routes.

 

They start building up the core network of routes and then move to the peripheral routes. This is making good use of available resources. If you check their Facebook fan page, you can gauge what sort of demands their customers have. So they have some information on the likely demand for the various destinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they(D7) always mentioned about the unpopular destinations they received such as North Korea,almaty,ashgabat,etc...but among these,they are some popular destinations such as darwin,nagoya,fukuoka,moscow,manchester, and berlin...why D7 still doesnt want to fly to these routes?

Yeah, I thought Azran has mentioned again and again and again and again (even in this thread) about the reason - the inavailability of the A350 to do non stop services to Europe and the analogy of that 110,000 pax vs 40,000 pax whatever for deployment of their aircrafts to busy route like SYD vs non busy one, and its impact to the Malaysian economy and tourism growth as a whole. And still, the same question is being asked again and again and again and again.

 

D7/AK have contributed a lot to making KUL a hub. Do you think KUL can achieved 29 million passengers movement and positive year-on-year passengers growth in 2009 without AK/D7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now have news that JetStar Asia will be more aggressive in their SIN hub when their new A332's arrive this year. Protecting MH will hurt D7 and restrict its ability to effectively compete with the regional airlines. The MoT must not be short sighted - D7 should not be artificially throttled/restricted as the end result will be that the Malaysian economy as a whole loses out.

 

The Minister must allow D7 to fight it out with all the competition in the region. Protecting MH will only mean failure for both MH and D7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay,how about destinations such as fukuoka and nagoya?cant their A330-300 fly to these routes? or they still want to use the same excuse;'the unavailability of A350 aircraft'. BTW,they still can fly to europe with the A330-300 aircraft via transit in middle east country,which they once had mentioned want to use this way.you should realize,that both changi and suvarnabhumi have these destinations while KLIA doesnt.Now,with jetstar's plan want use changi as their hub to north asia and europe with future destinations such as munich and dusseldorf( 2 destinations which not served by KLIA),KLIA would further shrinking....

 

 

p/s:If this happened,no need to talk about its impact to our nations economic,tourism growth,etc...you can thinking by yourself that KLIA would left far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's back to the prioritizing issue that has been mentioned and discussed again and again yet again. Airlines have done their calculation on which destinations generate the most economic benefit to them.

 

D7 is a low cost carrier.

 

It's ok. Go on. Protect MH on their KUL-SYD route even though it has been proven again and again and again in SIN and BKK that protectionism is NOT the way forward. And in the mean time, lets give more and more business to SQ or pay exorbitantly high fares on MH to SYD and see 3K/JQ and TR overtaking AK/D7 huge lead in the LCC segment. Malaysia is always programed to lose out to Singapore anyway. And it seems that a lot of us here are supporting of this - to keep on protecting MH and let D7 fails too even though MH can't ever make it.

 

Statistics are showing that passengers movement in KUL is growing steadily and MAHB is owing to AK and D7 for that. I don't really see your point about KUL 'shrinking' and being 'left far behind' when the actual fact is that KUL is catching up pretty well with BKK and SIN and we should keep that momentum going on as long as it can. Even if KUL is 'shrinking' and being 'left far behind' as you claimed, wouldn't allowing an airline that wants to add more capacity to a particular route or destination in KUL is one thing that can be done to overcome it?

 

The Singaporean government welcomed 3K/JQ (an Australian by nationality by the way), intention to use SIN as their hub with open arm. They don't seem to say 'Oh no, you can't fly from here to there because SQ or TR are serving the route' unlike what is happening with the Malaysian government. Making it more saddening is the fact that the party that the Malaysian government wants to upset is also Malaysian.

Edited by Mohd Azizul Ramli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's back to the prioritizing issue that has been mentioned and discussed again and again yet again. Airlines have done their calculation on which destinations generate the most economic benefit to them.

 

D7 is a low cost carrier.

 

It's ok. Go on. Protect MH on their KUL-SYD route even though it has been proven again and again and again in SIN and BKK that protection is NOT the way forward. And in the mean time, lets give more and more business to SQ or pay exorbitantly high fares on MH to SYD and see 3K/JQ and TR overtaking AK/D7 huge lead in the LCC segment. Malaysia is always programed to lose out to Singapore anyway. And it seems that a lot of us here are supporting this - to keep on protecting MH and let D7 fails too even though MH can't ever make it.

 

Statistics are showing that passengers movement in KUL is growing steadily and MAHB is owing to AK and D7 for that. I don't really see your point about KUL 'shrinking' and being 'left far behind' when the actual fact is that KUL is catching up pretty well with BKK and SIN and we should keep that momentum going on as long as it can. Even if KUL is 'shrinking' and being 'left far behind' as you claimed, wouldn't allowing an airline that wants to add more capacity to a particular route or destination in KUL is one thing that can be done to overcome it?

 

The Singaporean government welcomed 3K/JQ (an Australian by nationality by the way), intention to use SIN as their hub with open arm. They don't seem to say 'Oh no, you can't fly from here to there because SQ or TR are serving the route' unlike what is happening with the Malaysian government. Making it more saddening is the fact that the party that the Malaysian government wants to upset is also Malaysian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now,with jetstar's plan want use changi as their hub to north asia and europe with future destinations such as munich and dusseldorf( 2 destinations which not served by KLIA),KLIA would further shrinking....

 

Good to hear DUS is on their scope !!!

DUS is a very popular airport for BeNeLux passengers, so if the price it right, they surely will have a lot of business (and Northrhine Westphalia is a well populated area too)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I not said we should let D7 fails.I just want to say that they(D7) should grab the chances that have been given to them.They can fly to Darwin first,before they get the approval from the government to fly to Sydney and they also can fly to Nagoya before they manage get Seoul.Moreover,not all Malaysian people who travel to Australia want go to Sydney and not all Australian people who travel to Malaysia is from Sydney.BTW,they can fly to Melbourne and Perth,2 destinations which MAS fly to,so we cannot say that the government is protecting MAS too much.

 

The government also approved D7 to fly to Mumbai and New Delhi,AGAIN these are destinations where MAS fly to.They just failed to get Sydney and accused the government is over protecting MAS and doesnt support them as Malaysian company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I not said we should let D7 fails.I just want to say that they(D7) should grab the chances that have been given to them.They can fly to Darwin first,before they get the approval from the government to fly to Sydney and they also can fly to Nagoya before they manage get Seoul.Moreover,not all Malaysian people who travel to Australia want go to Sydney and not all Australian people who travel to Malaysia is from Sydney.BTW,they can fly to Melbourne and Perth,2 destinations which MAS fly to,so we cannot say that the government is protecting MAS too much.

 

The government also approved D7 to fly to Mumbai and New Delhi,AGAIN these are destinations where MAS fly to.They just failed to get Sydney and accused the government is over protecting MAS and doesnt support them as Malaysian company?

As per your u suggestion for D7 to fly to ad hoc cities temporariy before theit application is approved (Appplication lodged in one year ago for Sydney), I presume that you did not understands Azizuls reply on the economics involved.Please read his reply again.A lot of money and protocols and time ias to be invested and its just not woth it for temporaroy bussiness.

 

I can see that Singapore goverment adn jetstar is going to come from behind and overtake D7 as the malaysian goverment doesnt really seem to see KLIA as hub or at least doesnt seem to go about it aggresively.

 

Now how is MH going to stop Jetstar with their application as they are bound to fly from Sydney before D7 gets a chance?

 

Gosh one and only chance to toppple singapore is also going down the drain.

Edited by jadivindra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just see this topic going round and around again. we all have different opinions and logic as to why the garment should allow/disallow D7 to fly into SYD. one thing is for sure, SYD is definitely a lucrative route for any airline operating out of KUL. i shall prefer to sit back and see how far things can go, but by the looks of it, SYD is definitely a century away from D7 hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it's so hard for D7 , why can't they register themselves as a s'pore/thai/brunei entity ? obviously AK will stay malaysian so it can get the domestic slots.

 

I would think brunei is a good one, since they have the facilities and low traffic / closer to aust & china,japan,taiwan etc (in terms of flight corridors)

 

they can have a secondary hub wherever they decide to offload passenger and then connect them to KUL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay,how about destinations such as fukuoka and nagoya?cant their A330-300 fly to these routes? or they still want to use the same excuse;'the unavailability of A350 aircraft'.

Japan was on D7's radar last year - D7 is a low cost carrier (something new to Japan) and the Japanese authorities are not very co-operative about the requirements of a LCC. So D7 is still negotiating with them in order that the costs are manageable. The stumbling block is that the Japanese authorities are insisting that D7 used existing (high cost) Japanese ground and terminal handling agents at the airports. If the costs are too high, D7 will not be able to offer low cost fares.

 

BTW,they still can fly to europe with the A330-300 aircraft via transit in middle east country,which they once had mentioned want to use this way.you should realize,that both changi and suvarnabhumi have these destinations while KLIA doesnt.

Unfortunately, AK/D7 are point-to-point carriers and their booking systems are not capable of doing bookings with stopover destinations. However, they are working on it and when it is complete they will probably launch their flights to New Zealand, via Australia. This is probably why KUL-SYD is so important to them - it is the launch point for their NZ services too.

 

Now,with jetstar's plan want use changi as their hub to north asia and europe with future destinations such as munich and dusseldorf( 2 destinations which not served by KLIA),KLIA would further shrinking....

What you and a lot of people don't seem to understand is that LCCs need high point to point traffic. In order to offer lower fares, they need their load factors to be at least 70% to be profitable. Legacy carriers do not need such high loads. So it is important for LCCs like D7 to have a whole portfolio of routes that are popular so that the business generates profit. They have to go after the low hanging fruits first before attempting to go for the thinner routes.

 

p/s:If this happened,no need to talk about its impact to our nations economic,tourism growth,etc...you can thinking by yourself that KLIA would left far behind.

As Azizul has mentioned many times already, the AirAsia Group airlines have contributed much in terms of passenger traffic growth to KLIA. They feed off each other's route network. It is fantastic to see a new airline group show the way on how to boost traffic to KLIA. It is significant that MAHB has finally woken up and settled their differences with AirAsia Group concerning their requirements. If MAHB/AirAsia Group work together, I don't see why KLIA should not catch up in with BKK/SIN.

 

The Malaysian govt. messed up the automotive industry and lost its lead to Thailand because they wanted to protect the national car companies. They have a chance to redeem themselves in the aviation industry. As such the MoT should grant approval for routes so long as the airlines comply with the technical requirements and regulations. Let the airlines worry about the economics. As I have said before, the govt. should be the facilitator, not manipulator...

 

if it's so hard for D7 , why can't they register themselves as a s'pore/thai/brunei entity ? obviously AK will stay malaysian so it can get the domestic slots.

Yes, maybe D7 should register in SIN. Then they can do KUL-SIN-SYD... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While digging for the latest insider news from the MH Rumour Department, I was told that based on the Department's 'sources' at the Ministry of Transport, D7 is not getting SYD. It is simply 'NOT APPROVED'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government? MH? or D7 itself?

Apparently D7 already had all the right equipment and Sydney Airport had already allocated slots and was expecting the arrival of D7, but that all went down the drain. Who is to blame for D7 not having access to fly KUL-SYD? With D7 flying into SYD there would be a greater presence of Malaysian carriers into SYD compared to the sole national flag carrier that can hardly fly double daily plus terrible flight times (MH140 eff 31OCT10) It sickens me to think that MH is blocking D7 from flying into SYD, shame on MH if that really is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one thing that we know is that it is not the Australians - they welcome D7 anytime, anywhere. D7 has a strong passenger base in Australia and its not the Aussie govt. that is stopping them.

 

There has been much discussion on this topic here: http://www.malaysianwings.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=14304&view=&hl=SYDNEY&fromsearch=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government? MH? or D7 itself?

Apparently D7 already had all the right equipment and Sydney Airport had already allocated slots and was expecting the arrival of D7, but that all went down the drain. Who is to blame for D7 not having access to fly KUL-SYD? With D7 flying into SYD there would be a greater presence of Malaysian carriers into SYD compared to the sole national flag carrier that can hardly fly double daily plus terrible flight times (MH140 eff 31OCT10) It sickens me to think that MH is blocking D7 from flying into SYD, shame on MH if that really is the case.

Check out Sydney Airport curfew hours. It starts at 11pm local time. If flights were to leave after curfew, hefty fine !! So work it out youself before you critise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government? MH? or D7 itself?

Apparently D7 already had all the right equipment and Sydney Airport had already allocated slots and was expecting the arrival of D7, but that all went down the drain. Who is to blame for D7 not having access to fly KUL-SYD? With D7 flying into SYD there would be a greater presence of Malaysian carriers into SYD compared to the sole national flag carrier that can hardly fly double daily plus terrible flight times (MH140 eff 31OCT10) It sickens me to think that MH is blocking D7 from flying into SYD, shame on MH if that really is the case.

you criticized MH for not fly to syd double daily.why?are you fly to syd from kul everyday?lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government? MH? or D7 itself?

Apparently D7 already had all the right equipment and Sydney Airport had already allocated slots and was expecting the arrival of D7, but that all went down the drain. Who is to blame for D7 not having access to fly KUL-SYD? With D7 flying into SYD there would be a greater presence of Malaysian carriers into SYD compared to the sole national flag carrier that can hardly fly double daily plus terrible flight times (MH140 eff 31OCT10) It sickens me to think that MH is blocking D7 from flying into SYD, shame on MH if that really is the case.

 

There's always a reason why MH can't do more than double daily to SYD. You can't just have flights flying in without making money just for the prestige. They done that before and look where they at now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, MH was among the top 3 preferred airline ex-AUS.

 

During DXB construction boom a few years, there were many Aussies working in DXB. MH hardly took any afford to improve capacity and connection between AUS and DXB. KUL/DXB was tagged with KHI.

 

Almost all MH competitors increased their capacity to SYD in the last few years. Currently, EK has 3 daily from SYD include one A380, SQ has 4 daily ex-SYD, EY has 2 daily from SYD, etc.

 

Believe YL wished to travel on MH but MH schedule couldn’t match his requirement. YL may be one of the few pax that rant because he is passionate about MH, what about the rest of pax who are not as passionate about MH? Wonder why other airlines increased their capacity ex-SYD?

 

To save on airport parking charge and arrive at inconvenience time has been MH practice for many years e.g. EWR previously and believe is a reason why MH yield on these flights is lower than competitors.

 

If SQ can keep a 772 over night at SYD and still profitable, don’t see why MH can’t copy the idea?

 

If MH insists to keep the aircraft in the air, MH could set STD at 2130 hour but ATD is at 2230 hour and STA is at 0530 hour. At least ERL will be in operation, pax need not to pay 50% midnight surcharge for taxi or 2 hours shorter connection time at KUL.

 

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly SYD-KUL with D7 via MEL or OOL. The domestic air fares SYD-MEL or SYD-OOL always cost me almost 50% of D7 air fare for MEL-KUL or OOL-KUL. I hate these unnecessary additional cost and time involved for the domestic flights.

 

Nevertheless, the combined domestic air fare + D7 air fare is still cheaper than MH's SYD-KUL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out Sydney Airport curfew hours. It starts at 11pm local time. If flights were to leave after curfew, hefty fine !! So work it out youself before you critise.

 

Jason, I am very well aware of the curfew and other operations at SYD as I am a local here. But MH being (or wanting to be) a key player on the Kangaroo Route a better connecting time should be planned. They are pretty much throwing cash at their competitors. If you were taking KUL as a transit and could not make the afternoon MH122 service, would you rather arrive at KLIA at 3am and wait, and wait and wait...? As I am concerned no flights depart KUL circa 3am.

 

you criticized MH for not fly to syd double daily.why?are you fly to syd from kul everyday?lol

 

Well isn't criticism vital for improvement? But my aim is not to criticise, if MH markets SYD as one of their premier destinations, their current performance on the sector is quite underwhelming. I can obviously see why there have been claims that they are forbidding other carriers to fly the route, i am not saying they are. But one day D7 will definitely be granted access and it would be interesting to see what happens.

Besides even if I were to fly everyday KUL-SYD, MH would not be my first choice.

 

 

Believe YL wished to travel on MH but MH schedule couldn’t match his requirement. YL may be one of the few pax that rant because he is passionate about MH, what about the rest of pax who are not as passionate about MH? Wonder why other airlines increased their capacity ex-SYD?

 

To save on airport parking charge and arrive at inconvenience time has been MH practice for many years e.g. EWR previously and believe is a reason why MH yield on these flights is lower than competitors.

 

If SQ can keep a 772 over night at SYD and still profitable, don’t see why MH can’t copy the idea?

 

If MH insists to keep the aircraft in the air, MH could set STD at 2130 hour but ATD is at 2230 hour and STA is at 0530 hour. At least ERL will be in operation, pax need not to pay 50% midnight surcharge for taxi or 2 hours shorter connection time at KUL.

 

:drinks:

 

 

Honestly I am quite upset, MH don't seem to be getting their act together when competitors in the region have been gaining momentum in the industry. MH seem to be all worked up against AK, when in actual fact should not be the case because MH is not an LCC, they should play with the big boys and focus on their premium product and market. Let FY play with AK.

 

Thanks KKLee, you've said what I meant in my original post. Obviously you are one of those that can think and don't blindly get all defensive when there is criticism forwarded to MH.

 

I fly SYD-KUL with D7 via MEL or OOL. The domestic air fares SYD-MEL or SYD-OOL always cost me almost 50% of D7 air fare for MEL-KUL or OOL-KUL. I hate these unnecessary additional cost and time involved for the domestic flights.

 

Nevertheless, the combined domestic air fare + D7 air fare is still cheaper than MH's SYD-KUL.

 

Monopoly by MH, consumers are the ones disadvantaged. Like back in the days when only MH flew on domestic sectors, since then fares have been slashed considerably. The same thing should happen to international routes. You're not alone, smart move infact I must say. Who would want to pay top dollar for 1990's inflight product when a certain rival down south, offers high frequency with the latest cabin offerings that even other airlines talk about :)

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...