MH drops JNB from KUL-EZE

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Not sure if this has been discussed before but an A.net post quotes sources from Airline Route that MH will drop JNB from the KUL-EZE run, thereby making the route KUL-CPT-EZE which will be operated twice weekly with 744.

 

JNB gets its own service three times weekly using 772.

 

 

[Tamizi Hj Tamby 1]

Hmm,that's mean KUL-JNB will be operated using 772,then KUL-CPT-EZE still using 744.

 

Any reason for the drop of JNB from KUL-EZE run? Isn't MH & SA had an code-share agreement on the route?

[flee 5]

This will be good news for both JNB and EZE pax. This makes for smoother operations and with 3 weekly flights to JNB, MH will be able to adjust to the demand on that route instead of having to juggle three destinations on one flight.

[Johan Z 0]

Why 744 on KUL-CPT-EZE? Is it because of the load or something else?

[jani 0]

Maybe that's the reason? Code-share? Now they can just code-share with SA for CPT-JNB.

[Ahmad M 1]

Why 744 on KUL-CPT-EZE? Is it because of the load or something else?

 

ETOPS requirement on the CPT-EZE route renders MH's 777 unsuitable I believe.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Maybe MH has an extra B772 to be deployed for the dedicated mission to JNB?

 

Nevertheless this is a good news!

 

With QR soon to start their much publicized DOH-GRU-EZE vv, the detachment of JNB from KUL-EZE vv route will give MH the same competitive advantage as QR's (routing wise) as both carriers will operate a one stop flight from their respective hubs into EZE. Without this detachment, MH will probably be less appealing with its 2 stops flight to EZE.

 

A bit of a statistics, it was reported in MAHB 2009 annual report that for passengers' movement (both departure and arrival):

- EZE recorded 25,583 (- 10.2%)

- CPT recorded 11,856 (- 27.0%)

- JNB recorded 24,264 (- 18.1%)

 

Since only MH flies into these 3 airports from KUL, all the statistics above are the actual loads on MH's flights for the entire year of 2009. But hopefully the World Cup 2010 can increase the numbers this year.

[Johan Z 0]

It also gives MH an oppportunity to increase/decrease frequency to JNB, without affecting EZE-CPT sector.

[Ruiz Razy 1]

 

A bit of a statistics, it was reported in MAHB 2009 annual report that for passengers' movement (both departure and arrival):

- EZE recorded 25,583 (- 10.2%)

- CPT recorded 11,856 (- 27.0%)

- JNB recorded 24,264 (- 18.1%)

 

 

To further expand the above statistics, if all the above were to be divided by 104 ( 2 flights a week in a year); we would see: -

EZE almost 246 seats occupied per flight

CPT 114 seats occupied per flight

JNB 233 seats occupied per flight

 

The above would translate that the 380+ seater 744 have been doing rather well for MH on this route. This is a good point to prove the viability of this interesting route. This should simply "shut up" for those that are critical about the viability of this EZE route. In fact, hypotatically, if there were to be a 250 seater aircraft available that can fly non stop to EZE from KUL, MH should not have any problem flying to EZE!

 

Do note that 2009 was one of the most difficult year, if our RM continues to be strong and trade between M'sia and Latin America / South Africa continues to be bullish, MH would not have any problem in operating this route. I would say MH has done a good job . Syabas! Keep it up!

 

What will be interesting is to know what's next for Latin America? Perhaps Santiago de Chile or Rio as an extension from EZE route? And how will South Africa develop further? Daily to JNB by 2020? All of these are not imposibble if the right focus of service products are offered. Not forgetting this has to be consistently better that others.

[flee 5]

Maybe MH could consider using its A380 on one of the KUL-CPT-EZE flights. I believe most pax on this route are business travellers and yields are very good.

 

ETOPS requirement on the CPT-EZE route renders MH's 777 unsuitable I believe.

The distance from CPT-EZE is 6,901 km, the distance from KUL-CPT is 9,546 km while KUL-JNB is 8,504 km. If it is an ETOPS issue, then it may be because the South Atlantic does not have nearby airports for emergencies.

[KK Lee 5]

Understand many of EZE pax are transit from China.

 

[Johan Z 0]

According to this, a 180-min ETOPS rated 777 needs to overfly further than a four-engine 747. The shades are no-go areas.

 

[Fashni M. 0]

 

The above would translate that the 380+ seater 744 have been doing rather well for MH on this route. This is a good point to prove the viability of this interesting route. This should simply "shut up" for those that are critical about the viability of this EZE route. In fact, hypotatically, if there were to be a 250 seater aircraft available that can fly non stop to EZE from KUL, MH should not have any problem flying to EZE!

 

 

 

And many seem to forget that planes don't only carry pax, they carry cargo too!! These are crucial to any airlines operations and bottom line. The pax deck may be empty but no one realises that the belly may be full.

 

MH did very well on their MEX tag from LAX some time back. Pax loads on this sector were sometimes 'poor' but the cargo carried year-round made this sector very profitable. Hence why their freedom was revoked

 

The sectors of KUL-JNB/CPT-EZE are well within the range of the 744. So they can load the belly to the brim.

 

The Combi (743/744) used on this route previously, sure made them a profit. In this case profit, definately comes before prestige

[BC Tam 2]

To further expand the above statistics, if all the above were to be divided by 104 ( 2 flights a week in a year); we would see: -

EZE almost 246 seats occupied per flight

CPT 114 seats occupied per flight

JNB 233 seats occupied per flight

I suspect you may need to revise those data down by 50%

Statistics quoted by MAR clearly state "both departure and arrival"

Therefore 2 weekly flights out + 2 weekly flights in = 4 flights a week

Multiplied by 52 weeks a year = 208 flights a year

 

I may be wrong, but going by your averaging above, MH's 744's need to be 593 seaters

[Ruiz Razy 1]

I suspect you may need to revise those data down by 50%

Statistics quoted by MAR clearly state "both departure and arrival"

Therefore 2 weekly flights out + 2 weekly flights in = 4 flights a week

Multiplied by 52 weeks a year = 208 flights a year

 

I may be wrong, but going by your averaging above, MH's 744's need to be 593 seaters

 

The above detailed statistics did consider In and Out. That's y we have yr 593 seaters as it equals to almost 80% load factors for the "typical" MH 744.

 

BTW, yes cargo is another big plus. BTW, wud be interesting if we could similar analysis for EWR and ZRH .

[Azman MN 1]

The above detailed statistics did consider In and Out. That's y we have yr 593 seaters as it equals to almost 80% load factors for the "typical" MH 744.

 

BTW, yes cargo is another big plus. BTW, wud be interesting if we could similar analysis for EWR and ZRH .

 

I flew the ZRH flight many times. Flights are always full. Sometimes it is hard to get a seat on those flights. Business class is usually only half full though. When there used to be first class, I only noticed at most 2 passengers up front.

 

Therefore, even if the statistics show that load factors are good, it does not mean that margins are good.

 

Just for comparison sake, my last 2 flights on SQ A380 on the ZRH route was full in C class, but economy was not full.. one flight had around 170 and the other around 190 pax. This tells me that a full Y class does not mean anything.

[Ruiz Razy 1]

I flew the ZRH flight many times. Flights are always full. Sometimes it is hard to get a seat on those flights. Business class is usually only half full though. When there used to be first class, I only noticed at most 2 passengers up front.

 

Therefore, even if the statistics show that load factors are good, it does not mean that margins are good.

 

Just for comparison sake, my last 2 flights on SQ A380 on the ZRH route was full in C class, but economy was not full.. one flight had around 170 and the other around 190 pax. This tells me that a full Y class does not mean anything.

 

This is what we call "Yield Management". U may have noticed some of my remarks years ago did highlighted this issue. In a nuttshell, Premium Business Class / First Class are the ones that bring in profits to Legacy Carriers. In addition cargo revenues are said to be a better contributor compared to Economy class. Most Legacy Carriers are losing now as Business Class travellers have dropped and some have opted to travel on Economy.

 

When we look in the case of EZE, cargo is said to be good as it is one of the very few link between Asia - South America and South Africa - South America. Similarly in passenger traffic, but it must have been a challenge as the volume of trade between the said regions are comparatively low compared to the typical connectivity of Europe - US, ASEAN - Australia..etc. In the end MH did a good job considering that they had some advantages and yet some challenges within this region.

 

In the case of ZRH, being one of the most important Financial Centres and one of the highest GDP nation with one of the most diplomatic nation: I would say it's rather strange that MH were not able to make money from such perspective. The need for daily ( as highlighted on various occassion) services is essential for business comunities..that could be the case probably. But then again connecting two financianl centres of the world like SIN - ZRH automatically translates that Business Class is essential and wud not be a major task to promote such services. In this case, one wud say that this is where KUL is lacking.

 

Another problem here is Malaysians being typical Malaysians ( including Malaysian organizations) are generally carefull when it comes to spending money. In addition they do expect First Class service, but are only willing to pay peanuts ( most likely expect to b ugraded for free!); therefore Malaysians are mainly Economy Class travellers community. This was the main case y MH has difficulty to sell Premium Seats at good fares and has compromised yield significantly. This is proven when BA main reasons for pulling out from KUL was not b'coz of load factors but poor yield and were not able to sell their premium products. In this scenario, SQ I wud say had the advantages of one good premium demand as SIN itself is a global financial centre and not forgetting that most Singaporean companies wud make it a culture that their officers wud be eligle to travel on at least Business Class for duty travel ( particularly for long haul).

[dean hizudy 0]

I flew the ZRH flight many times. Flights are always full. Sometimes it is hard to get a seat on those flights. Business class is usually only half full though. When there used to be first class, I only noticed at most 2 passengers up front.

 

Therefore, even if the statistics show that load factors are good, it does not mean that margins are good.

 

Just for comparison sake, my last 2 flights on SQ A380 on the ZRH route was full in C class, but economy was not full.. one flight had around 170 and the other around 190 pax. This tells me that a full Y class does not mean anything.

 

 

same as mas flight to ARN which is very popular and always full flight but proves unprofitable.

Edited June 26, 2010 by dean hizudy

[Johan Z 0]

Was ARN-EWR the one unprofitable until MH had to scrap the route?

KUL-ARN was very popular especially for Australia-bound pax.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Johan Z

[KK Lee 5]

This is what we call "Yield Management". U may have noticed some of my remarks years ago did highlighted this issue. In a nuttshell, Premium Business Class / First Class are the ones that bring in profits to Legacy Carriers. In addition cargo revenues are said to be a better contributor compared to Economy class. Most Legacy Carriers are losing now as Business Class travellers have dropped and some have opted to travel on Economy.

 

When we look in the case of EZE, cargo is said to be good as it is one of the very few link between Asia - South America and South Africa - South America. Similarly in passenger traffic, but it must have been a challenge as the volume of trade between the said regions are comparatively low compared to the typical connectivity of Europe - US, ASEAN - Australia..etc. In the end MH did a good job considering that they had some advantages and yet some challenges within this region.

 

In the case of ZRH, being one of the most important Financial Centres and one of the highest GDP nation with one of the most diplomatic nation: I would say it's rather strange that MH were not able to make money from such perspective. The need for daily ( as highlighted on various occassion) services is essential for business comunities..that could be the case probably. But then again connecting two financianl centres of the world like SIN - ZRH automatically translates that Business Class is essential and wud not be a major task to promote such services. In this case, one wud say that this is where KUL is lacking.

 

Another problem here is Malaysians being typical Malaysians ( including Malaysian organizations) are generally carefull when it comes to spending money. In addition they do expect First Class service, but are only willing to pay peanuts ( most likely expect to b ugraded for free!); therefore Malaysians are mainly Economy Class travellers community. This was the main case y MH has difficulty to sell Premium Seats at good fares and has compromised yield significantly. This is proven when BA main reasons for pulling out from KUL was not b'coz of load factors but poor yield and were not able to sell their premium products. In this scenario, SQ I wud say had the advantages of one good premium demand as SIN itself is a global financial centre and not forgetting that most Singaporean companies wud make it a culture that their officers wud be eligle to travel on at least Business Class for duty travel ( particularly for long haul).

 

It is a known fact that MH didn’t have daily service to ZRH, FRA, ERW, etc, and not a member of airline alliances.

 

MH is GLC preferred airline, executives may adapt their itinerary to fit MH schedule and purchase separate ticket to destinations that is not served by MH. However MNC executives preferred to travel on airline that fit their schedule and has convenience connection. Hence, most MNC executives choose SQ even connection at SIN.

 

For inbound pax, MH regional connection to/from intercontinental or regional flights is still unique among legacy airlines, is not scheduled for convenience connection.

 

Until MH abandoned its 1990’s model, doubt MH could attract high yield pax.

 

[Azman MN 1]

It is a known fact that MH didn’t have daily service to ZRH, FRA, ERW, etc, and not a member of airline alliances.

 

MH is GLC preferred airline, executives may adapt their itinerary to fit MH schedule and purchase separate ticket to destinations that is not served by MH. However MNC executives preferred to travel on airline that fit their schedule and has convenience connection. Hence, most MNC executives choose SQ even connection at SIN.

 

For inbound pax, MH regional connection to/from intercontinental or regional flights is still unique among legacy airlines, is not scheduled for convenience connection.

 

Until MH abandoned its 1990’s model, doubt MH could attract high yield pax.

 

 

Well said. I have always maintained that MH should have increased to 6x weekly at least instead of cancelling the 3x weekly. Employees in my company do hundreds of trips to Asia/Australia every year and despite finding the price to be competitive, service to be excellent, connecting via KL quite pleasant, everyone found it hard to make the schedule work.

 

Now that SQ has reduced to daily flights from double daily, people are already moaning about the poorer schedules...

Edited June 28, 2010 by Azman MN

[Ruiz Razy 1]

Well said. I have always maintained that MH should have increased to 6x weekly at least instead of cancelling the 3x weekly. Employees in my company do hundreds of trips to Asia/Australia every year and despite finding the price to be competitive, service to be excellent, connecting via KL quite pleasant, everyone found it hard to make the schedule work.

 

Now that SQ has reduced to daily flights from double daily, people are already moaning about the poorer schedules...

 

I suppose the reason y they did not dare to increase is they may have been afraid of poor loads and 290+ seater T7s may have been too big. This is where Dreamliners would fit the picture perfect.

[KK Lee 5]

I suppose the reason y they did not dare to increase is they may have been afraid of poor loads and 290+ seater T7s may have been too big. This is where Dreamliners would fit the picture perfect.

 

Agreed with you but MH don’t seem to bother. May be by introducing a new aircraft type between 734 and A33E will interrupt their established hierarchy.

 

[Johan Z 0]

Agreed, MH should go daily or at least make it 5x weekly if they want to capture premium market,just like QR. Start with small aircraft and build it up as the demand increase. Not to mention the healthy cargo load. MH CEO has mentioned certain routes were operated at loss for a certain period of time, before profit was made. So, why not doing it.

[Azman MN 1]

I suppose the reason y they did not dare to increase is they may have been afraid of poor loads and 290+ seater T7s may have been too big. This is where Dreamliners would fit the picture perfect.

 

Zürich is a small city (population less than 1m). Switzerland is a small country (population less than 8m). No matter what, there will not be a lot of Y passengers. However, Zürich is a major financial center. Some of the biggest companies in the world are headquartered in Switzerland. Business travel is huge. Not only for businessmen, but also wealthy individuals on their annual holidays. (Salary levels are so high here that a return business class ticket to Asia is only about half a month's salary for the average professional).

 

As my previous post, SQ does not seem one bit concerned that they cannot fill up the Y seats because they can easily fill up the C class. Not only that, I noticed that Suites are also well taken up! I had trouble getting seats for my previous trip on SQ C class. Started looking around at Emirates, LX, QR... on all of them, C class were almost full. Only BA (strikes) and TG (political unrest) were available. Managed to get on SQ anyway in the end thanks to my persistent travel agent.