Pieter C. 5 Report post Posted June 29, 2010 I have always maintained that MH should have increased to 6x weekly at least instead of cancelling the 3x weekly. Now that SQ has reduced to daily flights from double daily, people are already moaning about the poorer schedules... MH going from 3 to 0 and SQ from 14 to 7 makes you wonder if there is really enough potential traffic... Anyhow, I agree: by offering a daily MH flight and doing a good job with yield management, the airline would have done better than pulling out of the market at all...now, they're loosing customers to (mainly) Star-Alliance airlines, like LH/LX/TG and SQ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azman MN 1 Report post Posted June 29, 2010 MH going from 3 to 0 and SQ from 14 to 7 makes you wonder if there is really enough potential traffic... Anyhow, I agree: by offering a daily MH flight and doing a good job with yield management, the airline would have done better than pulling out of the market at all...now, they're loosing customers to (mainly) Star-Alliance airlines, like LH/LX/TG and SQ... SQ went from 77W to 380. It's more like going from 14 to about 11 I think... but EK went up to 14. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruiz Razy 1 Report post Posted June 30, 2010 In the end; our formula would most likely be: - Profit = High Yield High Yield = Good Yield Managment Good Yield Managment = High Premium C and F + low operating cost High Preimum C and F = Daily Services + Good Promos + Good links with business communities Therefore : - Good Profit = Daily Services + Good Promos + good links with business communities + Low Operating cost. Feel free to add further...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2010 Why MH dropped MAN? They used to operate 747 into MAN about 10 years ago. Still puzzle me why this route was not profitable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2 Report post Posted June 30, 2010 Why MH dropped MAN? They used to operate 747 into MAN about 10 years ago. Still puzzle me why this route was not profitable. If I'm not mistaken I've read that to break even on the route their load factor would have to be 110%! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dean hizudy 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 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). Yup!agree with you.a lot of malaysian people urge MAS to follow rival SIA by offering good seat,better meals on board,interesting in flight entertainment,expand its destinations,increase its frequency,etc...but they refuse to pay more and choose to fly with LCC instead with the reason,'berjimat-cermat.' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kee Hooi Yen 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 If I'm not mistaken I've read that to break even on the route their load factor would have to be 110%! So they will need to sell seat 0A & 0B in order to breakeven Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 Can they load more cargo to compensate for the loss from premium pax? I'm sure MAN will have high cargo load from KUL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruiz Razy 1 Report post Posted July 16, 2010 Can they load more cargo to compensate for the loss from premium pax? I'm sure MAN will have high cargo load from KUL. KUL - MAN - EWR / JFK may be another alternative, There may be better prospect for premiums for the EWR / JFK and the back can be filled mainly the low yield MAN trafic. Introducing a daily with excellent amenities of 787 / 77W / 380 may also further encourage demand for the MAN - EWR/JFK leg. However, premium travellers essentially needs good and convenient timing with daily ops. Something that MH may be difficult for MH to bare. Not forgeting this idea is subject to 5th Freedom rights as well. Moving forward, a Combi - Mixed Passenger - Freigher of A380 may be another good way in managing yield with good backing from Freighter Demand. Perhaps the actual passenger load is equivalent to 77W in 4 class configuration and the rest being reserved for Cargo. In fact, it may also be used for KUL - LAX / KUL - EZE and maybe KUL - YVR nonstop ? A good precedent case was KLM in the 1990s, A large number of the 74Es did wonderful job of being a comprehensive passenger and cargo airline. Unfortunately , there were also some concerns by some quarters over security with regards to the partitioning between the Passenger and Cargo Areas particularly post 9/11. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KK Lee 5 Report post Posted July 16, 2010 Yup!agree with you.a lot of malaysian people urge MAS to follow rival SIA by offering good seat,better meals on board,interesting in flight entertainment,expand its destinations,increase its frequency,etc...but they refuse to pay more and choose to fly with LCC instead with the reason,'berjimat-cermat.' MH is not supposed to rely solely on Malaysian travelers or holiday makers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
