AK to charge for counter check-in

[Azri M. 0]

Josh T

 

 

Back to the topic, does Ryanair and Southwest use this model too? I mean by charging pax like this?

Tiger Airways Australia charges AUD20 for checking in at airport without luggage. The fee is waived if they have luggage.

 

What about those doing kiosk check in at the airport? Do you need to pay RM5 too? If not, then we will see long queue at the kiosk check in.

[Kenneth Chong WT 0]

I wonder the Transport Ministry have a say in this? How about the Consumer Society? This is too much, I don't like the fact that people in the rural area are "cheated" into paying the fee without knowing prior what option they have...this is just too much!

[Y C LEONG 1]

ryanair charges from my last memory GBP40 for checking in at the airport.. and also the same fee if u reprint a boarding pass at the airport eventhough u checked in online

[Ikman Ikreza 0]

What happend if AK system shutdown again as last time (July 9 to July 11) during upgrading and passenger can't checkin by kiosk or web checkin, so need to Q for manually counter checkin. Is it passenger will be charge? I think future AK will be charge RM5 per hand luggage because it's easy money for them.

[Kenneth Chong WT 0]

I have a joke to share...

 

Daughter: Mummy, why are all AirAsia's plane red?

Mum: That's from all the "blood" they are sucking from us...

[Dr Chuo Hock Tieng 0]

how long is the period allow us to space out between sector?

[JuliusWong 0]

I foresee that AK will start to be SEA's Ryanair soon. Just checked KUL-BWN sector, BI, MH and AK fares, BI came much more cheaper, then MH lastly AK..Used to fly AK a lot, but for Brunei-KL sector just got much more expensive although they have added another frequency.

 

For Pete's sake just bring back the fuel surcharge+ admin charge+ convenience fees+ double extra kilo surcharges...should be enough to fund the new airplanes. Why not charge RM1 per toilet entry?? Oppss, forgot that RM 1 coins are no longer in use...

 

Then again, there is "if-you-don't-like, don't fly them then" mentality, so before anyone bomb me, I have decided not to fly AK anymore, back to legacy airlines.

[flee 5]

Disclaimer: This is my personal speculation only and you may take it as a hypothetical situation at AirAsia.

 

Lately I detect that AirAsia is run on a flight by flight basis. It would seem to me that all their flights must be profitable before they are allowed to take off. As such many pax are experiencing cancellations and are put on alternative flights that are not really convenient. This is also happening on AirAsia X and it is upsetting their most loyal customers in Australia.

 

The signs are there too - AK postponing A320 deliveries (twice for aircraft scheduled to arrive in 2010) is another sign that their finances are not all that great. It also indicates that they don't have enough pax to fill their aircraft profitably. AirAsia X now has a spanking new A333 stored at Airbus, waiting for financing to be completed. They are not too bothered with the delay. Could it be that they can't utilise the new aircraft due to lack of bookings?

 

In his tweets, Tony Fernandes has often mentioned pushing up ancillary income. He also wants to charge for calls to the call centre - often forgetting that people already have to pay Telescum call charges for holding on for hours.

 

The above points would indicate that AirAsia is desperate to increase its income. So charging for counter check in should not surprise anyone.

 

As the saying goes, the customer is always right. If you don't like what AirAsia is doing, then your best sanction is not to fly with them. When business is down, they should know that customers are not happy.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Disclaimer: This is my personal speculation only and you may take it as a hypothetical situation at AirAsia.

 

Lately I detect that AirAsia is run on a flight by flight basis. It would seem to me that all their flights must be profitable before they are allowed to take off. As such many pax are experiencing cancellations and are put on alternative flights that are not really convenient. This is also happening on AirAsia X and it is upsetting their most loyal customers in Australia.

 

The signs are there too - AK postponing A320 deliveries (twice for aircraft scheduled to arrive in 2010) is another sign that their finances are not all that great. It also indicates that they don't have enough pax to fill their aircraft profitably. AirAsia X now has a spanking new A333 stored at Airbus, waiting for financing to be completed. They are not too bothered with the delay. Could it be that they can't utilise the new aircraft due to lack of bookings?

 

In his tweets, Tony Fernandes has often mentioned pushing up ancillary income. He also wants to charge for calls to the call centre - often forgetting that people already have to pay Telescum call charges for holding on for hours.

 

The above points would indicate that AirAsia is desperate to increase its income. So charging for counter check in should not surprise anyone.

 

As the saying goes, the customer is always right. If you don't like what AirAsia is doing, then your best sanction is not to fly with them. When business is down, they should know that customers are not happy.

 

If they prefer profits over customer satisfaction, then they'll lose big time. No customers, no profits! If they can't fill their planes, why did they order so many planes in the first place?

 

But, may I ask how the whole Tune Group is structured? Will the weaknesses in other companies affect AirAsia? Like TuneMobile, do people even use them? Or TuneFinance or whatever its name is? Do they need to offset the losses from these companies by siphoning off profits from AK? Or am I wrong and it's the airline's that is weak?

[Naim 6]

i'm also concerned that boss tf is now too busy on other projects as well. is he losing it on ak/akx?

[Josh T 0]

As the saying goes, the customer is always right. If you don't like what AirAsia is doing, then your best sanction is not to fly with them. When business is down, they should know that customers are not happy.

My point exactly. AK no longer gets my business. Word of mouth is a powerful tool. I've already convinced my family not to travel with them and also my friends.

[KC Sim 2]

More and more, LCCs such as AirAsia and Tiger Airways have too many hidden costs and non-savvy passengers may end up paying more than they would if they had booked on a full service carrier.

 

The more savvy passengers seem to just accept this as the new reality - but at some point, I think consumers should vote with their Ringgits / Dollars and make it a point to go for other options. Airlines such as these have become so hooked on ancillary revenue and spend tonnes of energy dreaming up new fees. Among the fees that one pay on airlines such as Ryanair are fees for booking through the internet, payment via credit card, online check-in and counter check-in, seat assignment, priority boarding (to secure the overhead locker space), every single piece of checked baggage, sports / musical equipment ... you wonder when you might be charged for using the reading lights, toilets (Ryanair promises that this is already in the works), aircraft steps etc.

 

And the worst part is many of these fees are not upfront in the websites of most of these airlines ... in 2000 when LCCs were taking shape in this part of the world, it was common wisdom that LCCs' success depended on the masses having internet access and a credit card. Now that the LCCs have established themselves, one is now required to pay for having these two basics!

 

And while consumers have no flexibility to change flights once the booking is made and paid for, the airlines have every flexibility to consolidate and cancel flights with total disregard for the passengers who have booked the affected flights. For many, LCCs (unless one books way in advance) is beginning to leave a rather sour after-taste.

 

KC Sim

[Josh T 0]

More and more, LCCs such as AirAsia and Tiger Airways have too many hidden costs and non-savvy passengers may end up paying more than they would if they had booked on a full service carrier.

 

And the worst part is many of these fees are not upfront in the websites of most of these airlines ... in 2000 when LCCs were taking shape in this part of the world, it was common wisdom that LCCs' success depended on the masses having internet access and a credit card. Now that the LCCs have established themselves, one is now required to pay for having these two basics!

 

And while consumers have no flexibility to change flights once the booking is made and paid for, the airlines have every flexibility to consolidate and cancel flights with total disregard for the passengers who have booked the affected flights. For many, LCCs (unless one books way in advance) is beginning to leave a rather sour after-taste.

 

KC Sim

Every now and then, I do comparisons for certain flights between MH and AK/D7, and more often than not, MH ends up being around the same price (sometimes a bit less, sometimes a bit more). I don't even bother looking for flights now even when AK/D7 have a sale. It's not worth the stress and worry that your flights might get changed or even cancelled! And even if MH were a bit more expensive, the difference is well worth the peace of mind!

 

I remember one particular flight that convinced me that full-service carriers were the way to travel. I was on an MH flight from Penang to Singapore. After we'd passed KL, there was a problem with the plane and we had to divert back to KL. MH were absolutely brilliant! They had a replacement plane and had us all boarded 45 minutes after landing in KL. As the plane took off, I remember thinking that if this were AK, I'd be stranded in KL and probably wouldn't get to Singapore until the next day!

[Waiping 12]

LCC at full-service price. That should be the maximum profit, no?

[Josh T 0]

LCC at full-service price. That should be the maximum profit, no?

Are you talking about AK? Well, this makes it easy to understand why (and how) they made such a big profit recently. Most people assume that MH must be more expensive because AK is a LCC and that's how AK trick the majority of travellers to book with them. Most savvy travellers will compare and end up booking with the full-service airline unless there's a significant price difference between the 2.

[Waiping 12]

No lah. MH is "value for money" in such cases.

[Josh T 0]

MH is pretty much always good value for money.

[affendi osman 0]

MH is pretty much always good value for money.

 

Very true Josh T.

 

I did some analysis by doing dummy booking to BANDUNG (BDO), one of the famous spot for Malaysians to shop till they drop and the price is as listed below:

 

KUL - BDO (19.11.2010)

BDO - KUL (21.11.2010)

 

MH = RM645 incl tax (free mysterious snackbox, seat allocation, 20kg luggage allowance)

AK = RM627 incl tax (after adding meals, seat booking, and 20kg luggage) and add another RM5 x 2 = RM10 for counter check-in service. Total is RM637.

 

MH is a bit expensive by RM8. Both airlines fly their 737 to BDO (AK can fly 320 there?). So it's up to the consumers to decide. As for me, I will definitely pay extra RM8. How about you?

Edited September 2, 2010 by affendi osman

[BC Tam 2]

LCC at full-service price. That should be the maximum profit, no?

I'm of opinion it's the (5*) full-service airline charging LCC prices nowadays instead

Remember how much we had to cough up before those little flying red ants appeared ?

[KK Lee 5]

MH is a bit expensive by RM8. Both airlines fly their 737 to BDO (AK can fly 320 there?). So it's up to the consumers to decide. As for me, I will definitely pay extra RM8. How about you?

 

Believe MH introduced KUL/BDO just to spike AK. Hence, MH fare on this route has been very competitive.

 

Believe only customer pressure can put a stop to all these absurd charges by LCC. Hope there will be enough customers to abstain from AK to force them to change.

 

[Sri Ramani K. 0]

I remember one particular flight that convinced me that full-service carriers were the way to travel. I was on an MH flight from Penang to Singapore. After we'd passed KL, there was a problem with the plane and we had to divert back to KL. MH were absolutely brilliant! They had a replacement plane and had us all boarded 45 minutes after landing in KL. As the plane took off, I remember thinking that if this were AK, I'd be stranded in KL and probably wouldn't get to Singapore until the next day!

 

Just a tip, never ever underestimate until you've flown with a LCC (or maybe AK in particular) and faced such a problem. You'll be shocked for yourself on how many times AK also had a separate plane waiting to take the pax to their scheduled destination. But hey, you're the consumer, and I totally agree that you have your own rights to choose and you're free to have your own opinion.

[affendi osman 0]

Believe MH introduced KUL/BDO just to spike AK. Hence, MH fare on this route has been very competitive.

 

Believe only customer pressure can put a stop to all these absurd charges by LCC. Hope there will be enough customers to abstain from AK to force them to change.

 

 

 

KK Lee, not only KUL BDO route, but the pattern remains about the same for other destinations. You don't have to book a year in advance, but try to book within 2 months. Then you'll see these fares....

[Ikman Ikreza 0]

Very true Josh T.

 

I did some analysis by doing dummy booking to BANDUNG (BDO), one of the famous spot for Malaysians to shop till they drop and the price is as listed below:

 

KUL - BDO (19.11.2010)

BDO - KUL (21.11.2010)

 

MH = RM645 incl tax (free mysterious snackbox, seat allocation, 20kg luggage allowance)

AK = RM627 incl tax (after adding meals, seat booking, and 20kg luggage) and add another RM5 x 2 = RM10 for counter check-in service. Total is RM637.

 

MH is a bit expensive by RM8. Both airlines fly their 737 to BDO (AK can fly 320 there?). So it's up to the consumers to decide. As for me, I will definitely pay extra RM8. How about you?

 

I will go for MH. Affendi, it's GTD price or normal price for MH?

 

I'm also tried dummay booking by today to BANDUNG (BDO) by using GTD for MH and dummy booking for AK same route and date. Here the results.

 

KUL - BDO (07.10.2010)

BDO - KUL (12.10.2010)

 

 

 

MH = RM305 incl tax (no insurance, free mysterious snackbox, seat allocation, 20kg luggage allowance)

AK = RM431 incl tax (basic without no insurance buy a speacial seat, luggage not included, meals not included)

 

MH is more cheaper than AK, different by RM126. So what can I say AK not a LCC nowadays. So by charge for counter check-in, it's not a good bisnes for AK, consumers will choose the best price and services.

[Waiping 12]

Believe MH is serving their KUL - BDO sector with the new B738, no?

 

I'm of opinion it's the (5*) full-service airline charging LCC prices nowadays instead

Remember how much we had to cough up before those little flying red ants appeared ?

 

Both ways I think. MH starts high and then slowly give discount. AK starts low but keep adding to that original price. In the end it's how much the difference that we can accept. Of course majority don't care and don't bother to check in the first place.

 

No doubt with more planes AK can afford to have planes on standby. To be honest I haven't had any severe delays on AK for years maybe. My most recent flight was delayed for only 30 minutes. Let's see how they fare when I fly again and this time eve of Raya, last flight KUL - BKI.

[flee 5]

Bandung airport runway length at 2,244m, is for some reason (maybe it is at 740+m altitude), not capable of taking bigger jets like the A320 with full load - that is why QZ still had to retain the old B733s whereas FD has gotten rid of all of them. MH operates the B734 into BDO.

Edited September 2, 2010 by flee