MAS Restructuring Plan

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

I just wonder why MAS is losing money while other airlines make money on the same or similar routes as MAS does !

 

I think by cutting the number of destinations (especially to the main hub such as FRA and India's) is not a wise move (at least for long term plans) and definately it will affect the effort in making KUL a main regional hub, and of course, MAS will suffer eventually. Purchasing A380 is essential for the high demand routes as well as part of fleet modernasation. CX, SQ, TG and even GA is acquairing new aircrafts such as A350, B787, B777-300ER etc. If MAS is still using the 'old' aircraft, I guess MAS would hardly compete with these airlines in 2~3 years time in terms of effiency, company image, customer preferences etc. If MAS decides to purchase any new aircraft only few years later, by then MAS fleet will be 'outdated' (at least 5 years compared with others !) and left behind by other regional ailrlines ! I know it is pain to talk about fleet renewal and modernasation now, but just look for long term.....

[Ruiz Razy 1]

I strongly believe all existing routes could be maintained (including EZE) if only the dedication to strive and shared interest is felt among the staff, supporting agents (incld. GSA's) and management.

 

FYI, Just heard that the EZE load is good (including CPT - EZE) After all, it's nearest competitor could only be via AKL or SYD on QF and Aerolineas Argentinas. ... And no competition at all to CPT and JHN. Sounds strange that they could capitalise on that advantage and yet no profit.....something wrong somewhere. I'm sure SQ would start if MH withdraws.... and no more "Across 6 continents for MH".

 

[Seth K 3]

and no more "Across 6 continents for MH".

 

Slogan doens't really help the situations right now

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

I strongly believe all existing routes could be maintained (including EZE) if only the dedication to strive and shared interest is felt among the staff, supporting agents (incld. GSA's) and management.

 

 

200% agree !

[Sing Yew 1]

Sad sad news.....but FRA should remain and so should ADL.

If its true that FRA is to be dropped, then LH may make it big here.

As for ADL, it may give way to EK to start that route, after months

of rumours about the route.

 

I forgot to mention that there may be a revamp in the domestic routes and operations.

 

Well if ADL is really axed, then I'll switch to SQ. They'll be having daily flights to ADL starting end of March. Air fares wise, they're a couple of hundred ringgit cheaper as well.

 

[S V Choong 4]

Is this guy for sure that MH going to sell one of their 777 to AI?

 

Tell me about it! There are a hand full of guys at A.net pretending that they know everything and anything!

[Ken K. Kour 0]

Really just a few SV? seems like everyone there is a know it all... have to take everything they said over there with a pinch of salt now adays..

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/gener...d.main/2629694/

[Andrew K 0]

I'm guessing the profitable domestic ones (4 out o 118 domestic routes) are KCH, BKI, PEN and JHB?

[Bing Chu 0]

How much credibility can one assign to the above-referred report when Chengdu is assumed to be in South Korea ?! It really is embarassing - I can only hope the text did not come directly from MH's PR dept.

[Mushrif A 3]

Based on the restructuring plan, amongst others, MH will focus on leisure pax...resulting in more densed Y-class and smaller capacity aircraft, with less floor space devoted on the premium cabins. It did , however, emphasise that the quality at the front end will not be jeopardised.

 

So, I guess we can look forward to 32" Y seat pitch in 744 & 772s. (Most pax will not pay for that extra 2"). And maybe, one can get status on Enrich by just flying Y (e.g. just like on Star Alliance airlines).

 

Also, stated that - joining alliance only slated to happen after 2yrs from now and new aircraft orders also to happen after 2 yrs from now.

Edited February 27, 2006 by mushrif a

[Bing Chu 0]

Based on the restructuring plan, amongst others, MH will focus on leisure pax...

Whoops, there goes the theory about the front end pays of the flight whilst the back enders make up the numbers ! Well, at least in the application of the theory !

[Mushrif A 3]

The Restructuring Plan did not specifically name the loss making routes (except for Vienna that lost some 30million over a 12-mth period - to illustrate a point) but over a 12-mth period, all European routes were loss-making - i.e. ZERO made money! The plan stressed that some routes will be rehabilitate to generate profits and others, which cannot be saved, will be dropped. Interestingly, quite a number of the ASEAN routes are profitable and so are the China & SOuth Asia routes.

 

Also, the plan states that there will be a staff downsizing beyond some 12 mths. APart from the already bloated staff strength as compared against regional peers, productivity was poor. Redundancy will come from automation (check-in, admin, ticketing), dropping of routes and smaller fleet, amongst others.

 

Btw, since Jan-06, check-in staff are given an incentive bonus to ensure that excess baggage are charged fees - i.e. part of fees collected go into their pockets - hence the more aggressive stance on this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mushrif A 3]

Whoops, there goes the theory about the front end pays of the flight whilst the back enders make up the numbers ! Well, at least in the application of the theory !

 

MH wants to pay a bit more attention on the leisure pax...In the plan, it admits that M'sia just does have enough flow of biz pax like what SQ enjoys. MH will not however abandon the front end, which will be & remain the icing.

 

Btw, the Plan made one boo-boo...it states "aircrafts" as plural for aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Some update :

 

http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.js...c4ec80-910dd86e

 

 

[Sanjay Thaker 0]

it is supposed to be announced on TV3 i heard....is that true?

 

[kandiah k 0]

Strangely enough, the routes mentioned thus far are the new routes such as CCU, AMD, CTU, XIAN, VIE, FUK and many more which will be announced soon (dont know when)....but VIE has been repeatedly dropped and restarted several times and yet it seems that they are out again. I think the Austrians are not going to be pleased with this and MH will become an airline with a bad "rapo" once again. It may become a joke to the aviation field that they have the "now you see, now you don't" policy.

 

I think they should just restructure some routes and their finances or simply cut/reduce some routes/ frequencies.

 

 

VIE

FUK

EZE

CPT

FCO

CTU

XIAN (too lazy to find the code)

CCU

AMD

KHI

AOR

RGN

LAX

EWR

NRT

MES

SUB

PNH

SIEM REAP

SGN

 

 

 

[Pieter C. 5]

LAX

EWR

 

Does this mean, they will stop flying to the US altogether ???

 

[Seth K 3]

MAS hope to make profit of RM50m and RM500m on the following year.........a total new plan for them, all the best!

[Fairul 0]

LON-LGK-KUL, LON-PEN-KUL, SYD-KCH-KUL, KUL-KCH-PER and FRA-KUL-KCH will be cut immediately ..

no more MR Bond flight (MH 007) and no more B777 for Kuching...sad..

 

[Ruiz Razy 1]

I susspect KCH and BKI may be a challenge to keep them profitable as the Yield and Fare to and from these two cities are much lower than the ones in the peninsular Malaysia. (In the past, the % fare increases to the East Malaysia has always been lower than west Malaysia).

 

As an example, fare for KUL - LGK is almost the same as KUL - KCH although KUL - KCH is longer. What more with those special fares to east Malaysia. (i.e. they have the YEE fare for East Malaysia but not within West Malaysia and not forgetting the above seat/mile - yield considerations).

 

The above could have been the logical reasons why MH would like to have the freedom to determine the fare.

 

[Attan 0]

well, i guess as long as its good for the company, i support it. If its yield that they want, then its yield that we'll have to get hopefully we'll see a leaner, meaner, Asian airline by the name of MAS.

 

I join you on that, Dante. It's the survival of the fittest.

[Pieter C. 5]

As an example, fare for KUL - LGK is almost the same as KUL - KCH although KUL - KCH is longer. What more with those special fares to east Malaysia. (i.e. they have the YEE fare for East Malaysia but not within West Malaysia and not forgetting the above seat/mile - yield considerations).

 

The above could have been the logical reasons why MH would like to have the freedom to determine the fare.

 

Guess, if they raise the fares to E-Malaysia too much, most passengers will opt for AK ?

 

Higher yields per seat for MH, but less seats sold/occupied...what's better for the company ? Will it help MH in the end this way ?

 

[Ruiz Razy 1]

Guess, if they raise the fares to E-Malaysia too much, most passengers will opt for AK ?

 

Higher yields per seat for MH, but less seats sold/occupied...what's better for the company ? Will it help MH in the end this way ?

 

No offence, what I really want 2 say is that the current fare is determine and controlled by the Government and not by market supply and demand. The YEE fares and other special fares is merely to promote demand - basic economics.

 

It is not a matter of number of seats sold or trying to fill the plane full, it is a matter of YIELD. Therefore, there is no point of flying at a loss (even if it is full) rather than flying say 80% load but at a profit.

 

In this case, downsize is a good option but do not sacrifice the conveinence / connectivity for premium and high frequent travellers. As AK has targetted the lower income brackets, (which could have eaten into MH EY market) maybe MH needs to target the upper middle and upper income population.

 

Personally, If I can afford I'll will and still choose MH over AK as I aspect full service and the conveinence / connectivity (Despite the fact that I always prefer the A320s than 737s).

 

FYI, C class on most of my (about 25 round trips in 2005) internal business trips since has always been full (JHB, KBR and occassionally KUA).

[S V Choong 4]

I join you on that, Dante. It's the survival of the fittest.

 

It is really hard, although I agree with the theory "the fittest survives".

 

For many years MAS have been trying to balance herself with government's interest against commercial viability. Unfortunately our government has yet to know what "fittest survives" means let alone the commercial reality.

Edited February 28, 2006 by S V Choong