British Airways Returned to Kuala Lumpur from 27 May 2015 and with B787-9 from 5 December 2015

[Izanee 0]

Exactly, I'm surprised ANA and Asiana are still giving KUL a miss. Plus the only slots to Tokyo Haneda from Malaysia have been grabbed by D7.

GA will soon be flying CGK-HND on top of the DPS-HND service.

Disappointing that Malaysia has not been deemed important enough for more HND slots.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

When KUL/SZB was part of the network 20 years ago. http://airlineroute.net/2014/07/11/rp-bas94/

[BC Tam 2]

Anyone can verify if BA did some sort of SIN-KUL-Bombay-Muscat-LHR flight back in the late 70's ?

[KK Lee 5]

In 1979, it was kul-bom-lhr on tristar 500.

[flee 5]

I flew on BA33 (L1011-500) in the early 1980s - LHR-MCT-KUL. Flight was quite empty and I had the whole row of seats to myself.

 

I doubt BA is a good fit for the KUL route as we don't have much in the way of premium pax. So unless they change their model and use high density aircraft offering low fares, I don't they will return anytime soon.

[BC Tam 2]

In 1979, it was kul-bom-lhr on tristar 500.

I could have gotten the Muscat bit confused, it was probably SIN-KUL-BOM-LHR then, but it was on a 742 for sure

My journey ordeal commenced from SIN, and being the long haul virgin then, yours truly was not the least prepared nor expecting demands of the long journey over - it was not a pleasant introduction

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

BA mentioned in many of its recent interviews that Asia is its main focus for growth. Seoul and Chengdu are derived from this initiative.

 

In a recent BBC produced 'A Very British Airline' reality tv series, BA mentioned that China is its prime target and that they wished to open 4-5 new destinations in the country alone, as more wealth and wealthy travellers emerge over there.

 

BA has some 42 B787s in the fleet and on firm orders.

 

So I guess, KUL is still having a chance, provided that we are moving towards the 'wealth' requirement as they determined. Malaysia's population is growing and we are getting richer, so there will be a day when KUL becomes too hard to be ignored. I think a daily B787 is perfect for the mission, especially if it carries along codeshare travellers to Australia/New Zealand on MH, or at least a tag on to CGK like in the olden days. Ignoring KUL and CGK in say year 2025 would be totally stupid on their part.

[Chris Tan 0]

If KL, AF, LH can make KUL work, I'm sure BA can - eventually. Agree that they should add CGK as a tag-on. KL has been happily doing so for years and LH has hopped on the bandwagon.

 

As for QF.... Their international network is unprofitable for the most part and I highly doubt they're in the mood to expand. If they can't even make PEK work I won't be holding my breath for KUL.

[Suzanne Goh 0]

Believe me - there will be no one happier than me on this board if BA come back with a KUL-CGK tag on (accompanied by the appropriate traffic rights as well)

 

[Chris Tan 0]

Believe me - there will be no one happier than me on this board if BA come back with a KUL-CGK tag on (accompanied by the appropriate traffic rights as well)

 

Lemme guess: Tier points?

[Suzanne Goh 0]

Lemme guess: Tier points?

 

Not tier points per se...... BAEC has a minimum "BA metal requirement"

[Kenneth Chong WT 0]

Maybe they can consider LHR-BKK-KUL...too many KUL-CGK already...hahaha!

[Sandeep G 1]

With a 787 they could seriously consider KUL-PER, KUL-MEL and even KUL-AKL given that BA/QF are estranging further and further each day, if not for the saving grace that is oneworld.

[Chris Tan 0]

With a 787 they could seriously consider KUL-PER, KUL-MEL and even KUL-AKL given that BA/QF are estranging further and further each day, if not for the saving grace that is oneworld.

I think the chances of LHR-KUL-PER happening are close to zero. PER isn't as "premium" as MEL and SYD.

[flee 5]

oneworld means nothing to BA as far as KUL is concerned. MH prefers to be LCC-like while BA wants to have nothing to do with LCCs. So it is no surprise that they are not even talking about code shares even though MH previously had code share agreements with BMI (now part of BA).

[Mike P 0]

oneworld means nothing to BA as far as KUL is concerned. MH prefers to be LCC-like while BA wants to have nothing to do with LCCs. So it is no surprise that they are not even talking about code shares even though MH previously had code share agreements with BMI (now part of BA).

 

Why would you say MH prefers to be LCC-like? Don't exactly think that way particularly MH is connecting KUL and LHR via A380, the flagship aircraft.

 

On the other hand, VS would start launching flight to SIN by 2015.

[flee 5]

 

Why would you say MH prefers to be LCC-like? Don't exactly think that way particularly MH is connecting KUL and LHR via A380, the flagship aircraft.

MH is dumping fares to get loads. We can see from their accounts that CASK is still above RASK.

 

BA wants high yields and does not particularly want to sell its tickets below cost. If they code shared with MH, they will also need to sell tickets at MH's fare levels. Otherwise people are better off booking with MH. So BA is careful not to follow MH's pursuit of high loads instead of high yields.

[Mike P 0]

MH is dumping fares to get loads. We can see from their accounts that CASK is still above RASK.

 

BA wants high yields and does not particularly want to sell its tickets below cost. If they code shared with MH, they will also need to sell tickets at MH's fare levels. Otherwise people are better off booking with MH. So BA is careful not to follow MH's pursuit of high loads instead of high yields.

 

Really? Didn't realise that though. Though I know any fare for KUL-LHR at 3K and lesser, it's a good deal. Similarly like KL/AF and LH have done so. The cheapest and craziest fare I've seen was EY on KUL - ORD at 1.9K!

[KK Lee 5]

 

Why would you say MH prefers to be LCC-like? Don't exactly think that way particularly MH is connecting KUL and LHR via A380, the flagship aircraft.

 

On the other hand, VS would start launching flight to SIN by 2015.

 

BA had plenty of experience on LHR-KUL. Given the vibrancy of our current economy, beside MinDef suppliers, there are not many British companies executives heading to KUL. Local GLC executives are required to travel by MH. MNC executives if not travelling on MH would preferred SQ. Hence, demand for J class is pretty low.

 

MH regional service judging by seat pitch, meal service and luggage allowance is effectively an all inclusive LCC.

[Isaac 0]

Maybe they can consider LHR-BKK-KUL...too many KUL-CGK already...hahaha!

 

 

Why would you say MH prefers to be LCC-like? Don't exactly think that way particularly MH is connecting KUL and LHR via A380, the flagship aircraft.

 

On the other hand, VS would start launching flight to SIN by 2015.

Because of the meals they serve on flights within SEA perhaps ? Absolutely nothing 5-star about that at all.

 

 

MH is dumping fares to get loads. We can see from their accounts that CASK is still above RASK.

True

 

 

Really? Didn't realise that though. Though I know any fare for KUL-LHR at 3K and lesser, it's a good deal. Similarly like KL/AF and LH have done so. The cheapest and craziest fare I've seen was EY on KUL - ORD at 1.9K!

You can get BKI-LHR and return from CDG-BKI ticket for just RM2300 last year! That's the kind of air fare that KL/AF couldn't beat. Last year i paid just RM700 for a BKI-KIX ticket too. And i have also booked a return ticket (BKI-HKG) a week ago for next month travel, all for just RM457/pax! You can buy a return BKI-TPE ticket for just RM550 too last week. You can also buy a return ticket from KUL to SYD for only RM1301 two days ago.

 

By the way, KL/AF seem to be doing better than LH and it is probably because KL/AF are deploying aircraft with more Y seats whereas most of LH aircraft have plenty of premium seats and that doesn't play too well with KUL. I was very surprised when AF started flying to KUL with a 4-class 772. Anyway, they have now changed to a 3-class 772 with more Y seats which is definitely a better fit than a 4-class 772.

BA had plenty of experience on LHR-KUL. Given the vibrancy of our current economy, beside MinDef suppliers, there are not many British companies executives heading to KUL. Local GLC executives are required to travel by MH. MNC executives if not travelling on MH would preferred SQ. Hence, demand for J class is pretty low.

 

MH regional service judging by seat pitch, meal service and luggage allowance is effectively an all inclusive LCC.

You are spot on, Mr. Lee

[JuliusWong 0]

MH is dumping fares to get loads. We can see from their accounts that CASK is still above RASK.

 

BA wants high yields and does not particularly want to sell its tickets below cost. If they code shared with MH, they will also need to sell tickets at MH's fare levels. Otherwise people are better off booking with MH. So BA is careful not to follow MH's pursuit of high loads instead of high yields.

Really? Didn't realise that though. Though I know any fare for KUL-LHR at 3K and lesser, it's a good deal. Similarly like KL/AF and LH have done so. The cheapest and craziest fare I've seen was EY on KUL - ORD at 1.9K!

We also need to acknowledge that although our Malaysia economy has been diverse and vibrant over the past few years, oneworld group members are not really keen on transiting or fly into KL because:

• Hong Kong and Singapore- Offers better airport amenities, connectivity and much more vibrant economy. Both destinations have more premium travellers, be it for leisure or for business purposes.
• Long haul capable aircraft- Gone are the days where aircraft needs to make stop over at mid-point as Boeing and Airbus are making even better widebody aircraft with much better economies and range.
• The co-operation of airline member, especially Qantas with others- 'Enuf said.

[Chris Tan 0]

If we're calling MH and LCC because of their meals and service on regional routes, we're forgetting that BA is worse.

 

For the most part, you won't be fed on intra-Euro flights. In J you get the same Y seat on narrowbodies with the middle seat blocked. Their Y baggage allowance is stingier than MH's. They even offer hand luggage-only fares on intra-Euro flights, which is just a clever way of charging for bags.

 

Am I pleased that MH is making all sorts of cutbacks? Definitely not. But if we're talking about the reason behind BA not wanting to codeshare with MH because of the latter acting like an LCC, note that BA codeshares with Airberlin. Now that airline is more like an LCC

[flee 5]

If we're calling MH and LCC because of their meals and service on regional routes, we're forgetting that BA is worse.

Then BA is doomed in KUL! Who would want to fly long haul on BA if it is worse than MH?

[JuliusWong 0]

Well, Europe and Asia have different market dynamics. European airlines will nick and dime everything, no thanks to Ryanair, Wizzair and Easyjet. That's how the FSC are also behaving now maybe except for LH. IMO, airberlin is not totally LCC I would say. It is a confused child, with three personalities: LCC, charter and long haul services......

 

The day when MH or Asia FSC airlines starts nick and dime, we are doomed.........

Edited July 14, 2014 by JuliusWong

[Suzanne Goh 0]

In J you get the same Y seat on narrowbodies with the middle seat blocked.

 

This will be becoming more true in the near future. Right now, Club Europe is a middle seat blocked, but at least at the front of the plane it's 34inch pitch. They've got one newly refurbished A320 G-EUYO flying around now where the pitch is the same throughout - at 30inches..... and the entire short haul fleet is going that way.

 

The good thing about the current situation in Y though - is if the curtain is far enough forward, Y pax can get the 34 inch pitch seats shorthaul too.