MAS keen on sale of aircraft

[Bing Chu 0]

Just a quick thought - Airbus is supposed to compensate airlines due to late delivery of the whalejet. MH stands to gain, monetary wise if they stick to receiving the aircraft. If they cancel now, there will likely be penalties, ie MH pays.

 

Very simplistic view I admit - there must be volumes of get out clauses either side I reckon

[S V Choong 4]

BC. in addition to that MAS will be paying at a cheaper rate for the Airbus A380 as well, as they were one of the earliest customer for the A380 alongside SQ, QF, EK and etc.

[Ignatius 4]

What do i have to say ? Short pencils (A332 A33) and baby pencils(B734) sell em and buy the A320's. Bring in longer pencils (A345/6) Sell some of the big head pencils (B744) and dont stop the FAT PENCIL (A380). So domestic and short/medium haul we use the mini Bus (A320), medium and off peaks season routes we use the not so short fat pencil 772 or long pencil A345/6. Long and profitable routes use 744 and A380lah.. Sarawak domestic pula? Just use F50 enough.. if not no prop a/c left to spot!!! Instead of wasting money on paintings again in the future, MAS should also start changing liveries... Bosanlah Red blue grey... really... look at AK, they're colourful.. Mas should be more creative and colourful... Heliconia and Hibiscus not enough...

[Bing Chu 0]

..... Sarawak domestic pula? Just use F50 enough.....

You're not going to be a welcomed figure in Tan Sri TPK's books !!

[Seth K 3]

If they cancel now, there will likely be penalties, ie MH pays.

 

If MH delay the delivery date, just like AF..........I think everything will be all right

 

[Azuddin 1]

if mas get rid of 744, what would happen to LAX route. will it gonna be like SQ which uses 777 for SIN-LAX via TPE.

 

i would suggest they get rid of all airbus and go for all boeing. it would be cheaper because they only uses services from boeing. or if they want to keep the airbus, getrid of the 4 engines and stay with only the two engines.

 

if for me, i would take the fleet to go all boeing. take 767 to replace the A330.

 

Azuddin

[Imran K. 0]

The cost of implementing new aircrafts into the fleet would cost quite a large sum of money...money which MAS desperately needs to get its act together...

[Seth K 3]

if for me, i would take the fleet to go all boeing. take 767 to replace the A330.

 

I don't think 767 is suitable for MH fleet, MH definately happy with their A330.....so we may see this bus a lil'bit longer than expected

 

[Sandeep G 1]

They've stated that they want to sell 12/13 744s... but do they even own them??? Doesn't PMB own the aircraft now?? So if they sell them, shouldn't PMB receive the money from the sale????? Or are the projected savings in lieu of lower lease repayments to PMB... I doubt they are paying RM1 billion for the lease of these 744s across one year.. if they are... crap!

 

Is this just a ploy to get money from the government (i.e. through PMB) so that it sort of appears not to be a government bail-out, when it actually is???

 

If they wanna raise cash, why not sell more of the airline on the KLSE.. dilute the governments share... its an equity exercise and will dilute existing shares partially, but can raise much needed cash without stripping MH of any assets that in my opinion are PARAMOUNT to the successful restructuring of MAS... (i.e. the 744s.. sell the building, it won't matter really.. i like the idea of consolodating ops at Subang...)

 

And its good to see that they are continuing the "going beyond expectations" theme... I think they should stick with this marketing theme for life... build a reputable and iconic brand under this slogan..

 

Investment in new aircraft I feel is really necessary! Igantius, the A345 and A346 have not received fantastic operations reports from existing clients such as SQ, TG and even VS.. "You don't need 4 engines for long haul" anymore... ETOPS certifications nowadays are more than adequate.. The 773ER and 772LR will fit PERFECTLY into MAS' fleet... I also feel that the B737NG family is a more appropriate choice for MH over the A320, simply because MH is a traditional 737 client and that aircraft has been the backbone of MAS for years! The A320 is nice nice, but will require lots of investment in retraining and acquisition of new facilities and equipment to service.. I also think the B787 is an ideal replacement for the A333/A332..

 

Personally, I think MAS should just go all Boeing... The A380s.. well, let's see.. but the 747-800 is ideal for MAS too...

[Sandeep G 1]

Hey Kandiah,

 

The A332 was designed for long-range routes.. with a penalty on payload of course, but this is where the aircraft would be better in service!

 

Some data of the A330-200 for you to view: (Source: Airbus.com, mas.com.my)

 

Engines: two CF6-80E1 or PW4000 or RR Trent 700 MAS: PW4168A

 

Typical passenger seating: AIRBUS: 253 (3-class) 293 (2-class) MAS: 229 (2-class)

 

Range (w/max. passengers) 12,500 km. [6,750 nm.] [Typically, Paris-Singapore non-stop]

 

Max. operating Mach number (Mmo) 0.86 Mo.

 

Bulk hold volume - Standard/option 19.7 / 13.76 m3 695 / 486 ft3

 

Some data of the A330-300 used by MAS: (Source: Airbus.com, mas.com.my

 

Engines two CF6-80E1 or PW4000 or RR Trent 700 MAS: PW4168

 

Engine thrust range 303-320 kN 68,000-72,000 lb. slst

 

Typical passenger seating 253 (3-class) 293 (2-class) MAS: 294 (2-class)

 

Range (w/max. passengers) 12,500 km. 6,750 nm. [Typically Zurich-Bangkok]

 

Max. operating Mach number (Mmo) 0.86 Mo. 0.86 Mo.

 

Bulk hold volume - Standard/option 19.7 / 13.76 m3 695 / 486 ft3

 

 

So you can see that at present, that MAS is not utilizing these aircraft effectively as per their performance criteria.. the A332s would be far more efficient on runs to FCO and ZRH, which are not such heavy traffic.. the 777 used presently on both these sectors are too much and not viable when they can be used elsewhere... of course the config of the 777s at MAS is comfortable, but a wee bit ridiculous for profitable operation.. sacrifice some of the comfort in seat pitch for extra capacity and these aircraft will simply be able to make MAS more money at the end of the day.. its good to see that Idris Jala and his team have addressed this in their "business turnaround plan: The MAS way" and are going to install additional capacity on the 777.

 

[Azuddin 1]

Hey Kandiah,

 

The A332 was designed for long-range routes.. with a penalty on payload of course, but this is where the aircraft would be better in service!

 

So you can see that at present, that MAS is not utilizing these aircraft effectively as per their performance criteria.. the A332s would be far more efficient on runs to FCO and ZRH, which are not such heavy traffic.. the 777 used presently on both these sectors are too much and not viable when they can be used elsewhere... of course the config of the 777s at MAS is comfortable, but a wee bit ridiculous for profitable operation.. sacrifice some of the comfort in seat pitch for extra capacity and these aircraft will simply be able to make MAS more money at the end of the day.. its good to see that Idris Jala and his team have addressed this in their "business turnaround plan: The MAS way" and are going to install additional capacity on the 777.

 

 

i do notice that, MH put most A330 for short route such as BKK, SIN, HKG, KCH, PEN. i notice Aer Lingus use the A330 for DUB-LAX nonstop.

 

my opinion, if MH want to keep the A330, they sould take it to GO THE DISTANCE

 

restrict the domestic route for only 734 and F-50. we even use the 777 for KUL-KCH route.

 

Azuddin

[Seth K 3]

i do notice that, MH put most A330 for short route such as BKK, SIN, HKG, KCH, PEN. i notice Aer Lingus use the A330 for DUB-LAX nonstop.

 

As I told by someone here, it's the load factors that determine equipment use or add frequencies. Look how PAL use 737 to KUL and 330 to SIN

 

my opinion, if MH want to keep the A330, they sould take it to GO THE DISTANCE

 

Well, I don't wanna be in A330 on long haul routes cuz MH don't have PTV with AVOD in it. When it come to popular destinations, services seperate the qualities, so, 777 and 747 are perfect already.

 

restrict the domestic route for only 734 and F-50. we even use the 777 for KUL-KCH route.

 

As far as I know, there are only two flights to KCH using 777, one continue on to FRA another one thrice a week because of high loads(assume from TR)

 

They've stated that they want to sell 12/13 744s... but do they even own them??? Doesn't PMB own the aircraft now?? So if they sell them, shouldn't PMB receive the money from the sale?????

 

This one I don't get it. What the difference between PMB and MH.......they kinda sorta same

 

[Sandeep G 1]

 

This one I don't get it. What the difference between PMB and MH.......they kinda sorta same

 

 

They kinda completely seperate entities..

[Isaac 0]

AMS 744's are always full (don't know the yield, though), and 2x 777 is more expensive than 1x 744 a day...

Yield is still ok for EY but sucks for premium classes, i heard. Since MAS are going to add more EY seats into their 772, i think 2x daily MH772 to AMS will be a lot better.

 

if mas get rid of 744, what would happen to LAX route. will it gonna be like SQ which uses 777 for SIN-LAX via TPE.

Or they will temporiraly suspend the route. About SQ using 772 for the SIN/TPE/LAX vv. sector, they are doing much better on the sector since they use the 772.

 

I don't think 767 is suitable for MH fleet, MH definately happy with their A330.....so we may see this bus a lil'bit longer than expected smile.gif

MAS are not happy with their 333. All of MAS 333 are the early version ones, they got many mechanical problems and the pilots at MAS also don't like it. Crews at MH got a funny joke about MAS Airbus planes (not a good one). I personally think the 763 fits into MAS networks fine.

 

Investment in new aircraft I feel is really necessary! Igantius, the A345 and A346 have not received fantastic operations reports from existing clients such as SQ, TG and even VS.. "You don't need 4 engines for long haul" anymore... ETOPS certifications nowadays are more than adequate.. The 773ER and 772LR will fit PERFECTLY into MAS' fleet... I also feel that the B737NG family is a more appropriate choice for MH over the A320, simply because MH is a traditional 737 client and that aircraft has been the backbone of MAS for years! The A320 is nice nice, but will require lots of investment in retraining and acquisition of new facilities and equipment to service.. I also think the B787 is an ideal replacement for the A333/A332..

I couldn't agree more

 

my opinion, if MH want to keep the A330, they sould take it to GO THE DISTANCE

Since MAS have decided to keep the 333, i suggest MAS to fly it to where their 333 currently flying to except DXB, BEY, FUK, NGO, BJS and ICN. If they plan to keep the 333 in service for another 5 years or longer, than they better install PTV with AVOD in all classes. Deploy these 333 to destinations with flight time less than 6 hours, take a way some galleys so that they can add a few more EY seats without decreasing the EY seat pitch !

 

[Sherman 0]

.....

MAS are not happy with their 333. All of MAS 333 are the early version ones, they got many mechanical problems and the pilots at MAS also don't like it. Crews at MH got a funny joke about MAS Airbus planes (not a good one). I personally think the 763 fits into MAS networks fine.

...

what joke?

[S V Choong 4]

Investment in new aircraft I feel is really necessary! Igantius, the A345 and A346 have not received fantastic operations reports from existing clients such as SQ, TG and even VS.. "You don't need 4 engines for long haul" anymore... ETOPS certifications nowadays are more than adequate.. The 773ER and 772LR will fit PERFECTLY into MAS' fleet... I also feel that the B737NG family is a more appropriate choice for MH over the A320, simply because MH is a traditional 737 client and that aircraft has been the backbone of MAS for years! The A320 is nice nice, but will require lots of investment in retraining and acquisition of new facilities and equipment to service.. I also think the B787 is an ideal replacement for the A333/A332..

 

But... whether MAS is heading for B737NG or A320 series, they will both require training anyway. Don't think B737 classic pilots can fly the B737NGs without any problem. My argument for MAS' acquisition of B737NG is that MAS will be offering a different product that's all. Further more, like you said, the 737s have been with MAS since the day it was founded in 1972 and even prior to that.

 

The 773ER and 772LR will also be fine for MAS. The current KUL-TPE-LAX route is a pain in the butt with one stop at TPE and they will get squeezed out by their competitor (both TG and SQ), the 777-200LR will be fine for this route and perhaps even KUL-EWR? Since the 744 does not fit into MAS' network, perhaps the 773ER do with smaller pax number and much more economical to fly - the 4 holer vs. 2 holer situation.

 

Since MAS have decided to keep the 333, i suggest MAS to fly it to where their 333 currently flying to except DXB, BEY, FUK, NGO, BJS and ICN. If they plan to keep the 333 in service for another 5 years or longer, than they better install PTV with AVOD in all classes. Deploy these 333 to destinations with flight time less than 6 hours, take a way some galleys so that they can add a few more EY seats without decreasing the EY seat pitch !

 

The A330 in CX and KA fleet have all been installed with PTV, I don't see why MAS doesn't want to do it in order to stay competitive. I think the B787 will be an ideal replacement for A330-300s. Forget about the A350s, the look is old. Both MAS and SIA should have lost faith in Airbus' initial products by now. Before the official release of Boeing 787, looks like MAS is pretty much stucked with the A330-300s. Can't help to think that the A330s look a little tired compared to the B747-400 and B777-200ERs of MAS. I have never understood why MAS is sending their A330s to PEK while knowing that competitors like SQ and TG have better product?

 

Looks like ignatius is a pro-Airbus fan Heard over the vineyards that SQ is NOT happy with their A340-500s. So, why did Thai acquired the A340-500s and 600s? Because it is cheaper than the competing Boeing aircraft. The 777-300ER and 777-200LR is more economical to fly with. As of now, with MAS is struggling to bring herself out of red and corruption, I can't see any them ordering any a/c anytime soon!

Edited March 11, 2006 by S V Choong

[Seth K 3]

The 773ER and 772LR will also be fine for MAS. The current KUL-TPE-LAX route is a pain in the butt with one stop at TPE and they will get squeezed out by their competitor (both TG and SQ), the 777-200LR will be fine for this route and perhaps even KUL-EWR? Since the 744 does not fit into MAS' network, perhaps the 773ER do with smaller pax number and much more economical to fly - the 4 holer vs. 2 holer situation.

The A330 in CX and KA fleet have all been installed with PTV, I don't see why MAS doesn't want to do it in order

 

772LR won't work for MH. Most longhaul route need smaller aircraft than current one with LR to make all the way. Any idea what aircraft fit the title?

 

 

[Isaac 0]

But... whether MAS is heading for B737NG or A320 series, they will both require training anyway. Don't think B737 classic pilots can fly the B737NGs without any problem.

Sure it requires training for both types but there will be less fuss with the B737NG. After the training the pilots can fly both classic-B737 and B737NG anytime. This will also lower down the operating cost while MAS slowly phasing out all of their 734. (Because NO 2 sets of pilot required)

 

The 773ER and 772LR will also be fine for MAS.

Totally agree with you about the 77W. The 77W fits into MAS PERFECTLY. Not too big, not too small either and it got a big belly cargo area. But i'm not too sure about the 772LR unless MAS are going to configure the 772LR with regular seating layout, then i think the 772LR might works for MAS.

 

The current KUL-TPE-LAX route is a pain in the butt with one stop at TPE and they will get squeezed out by their competitor (both TG and SQ),

TG don't have any non-stop flight between TPE and LAX.

 

 

The A330 in CX and KA fleet have all been installed with PTV,

No, Choong. Currently only the newly acquired 2-class KA333 have PTV in all seats. KA will install PTV on the rest of their 333 (all 3-class) when those planes go for D check.

 

I think the B787 will be an ideal replacement for A330-300s.

I couldn't agree more

 

Forget about the A350s, the look is old. Both MAS and SIA should have lost faith in Airbus' initial products by now.

Yeah. Both carriers have bad experience from Airbus aircraft. Especially being a launch customer.

SIA = 343 and now 345

MAS = 333

 

I have never understood why MAS is sending their A330s to PEK while knowing that competitors like SQ and TG have better product?

I guess they don't have any spare 772 to do the PEK flight. SQ do indeed have better product but not TG. TG is the same as MH unless they bring their reconfigured 777 to PEK.

 

Heard over the vineyards that SQ is NOT happy with their A340-500s.

It's true. Not just a plain rumor. CX aren't happy with their 346 too.

 

So, why did Thai acquired the A340-500s and 600s? Because it is cheaper than the competing Boeing aircraft.

It was because of the ETOPS issue.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Isaac

[S V Choong 4]

772LR won't work for MH. Most longhaul route need smaller aircraft than current one with LR to make all the way. Any idea what aircraft fit the title?

 

KUL-LAX will be fine on the 772LR. I think KUL-EWR or KUL-JFK will be fine as well.... Remember that the 772LR is a winner when compared to the A345? I bet SQ would like to swap their A345s for the 772LR should Boeing offer to buy back their A345s! Unlike the A345, the 772LR should be able to fly KUL-LAX will normal configuration.

 

TG don't have any non-stop flight between TPE and LAX.

 

But they have BKK-LAX using direct using A345 right?

 

I think PIA is not using their 777-200LR to the max. Wonder why on earth they order the 777-200LR for.....?? Bet it is sort of given to them by Uncle Sam, something to do with effort of supporting the full of crap anti-terrorism campaign.

 

It's true. Not just a plain rumor. CX aren't happy with their 346 too.

 

Suppose thats why they have ordered 77W to replace their 744 and return the 346 to the lessor.

 

Sure it requires training for both types but there will be less fuss with the B737NG. After the training the pilots can fly both classic-B737 and B737NG anytime. This will also lower down the operating cost while MAS slowly phasing out all of their 734. (Because NO 2 sets of pilot required)

 

Are you sure that works both ways? If it does, then it is jolly good. Wonder why AK didn't do this, perhaps the A320 is cheap enough to discourage them from doing so. The 737NG should have better technology, well, at least more fuel efficient engines than the competing A320. But who is the winner in terms of fuel economy? Heard the 737NG won due to the reason that they don't have any LD containers underfloor.

 

Yeah. Both carriers have bad experience from Airbus aircraft. Especially being a launch customer.

SIA = 343 and now 345

MAS = 333

 

Soon it might be the A380 that will disappoint them...... In contrast, Boeing's aircraft has performed better than expected, especially with the 777 series!! Is TG happy with the performance of their A333? Their A333 are the A330-321s (MAS is A330-322) which means an older type. I suppose they have more problem than MAS?

 

Interestingly, why are Airbuses' fuselage is yellow in colour while Boeings are alluminium before any paint is applied?

 

It was because of the ETOPS issue.

 

Ahh ETOPS - Engines Turn or Passenger Swim! Sure they can get it ETOPS certified if they want to.

 

Edited March 12, 2006 by S V Choong

[Isaac 0]

But they have BKK-LAX using direct using A345 right?

They have 3x weekly nonstop flight between BKK/LAX using 345. Last time they had 5x weekly (BKK-KIX-LAX-KIX-BKK) flight operated by 744 (later changed to 346).

 

I think PIA is not using their 777-200LR to the max.

Speaking of PIA 772LR, have their 772LR entered service ? Where the plane fly to ? What is the seating configuration ?

 

Suppose thats why they have ordered 77W to replace their 744 and return the 346 to the lessor.

Part of the reasons ......

 

Are you sure that works both ways? If it does, then it is jolly good.

100% sure. KLM is among the airlines doing so (as Pieter said) and i just found out CO (Continental Airlines) have been doing this for years too.

 

The 737NG should have better technology, well, at least more fuel efficient engines than the competing A320. But who is the winner in terms of fuel economy? Heard the 737NG won due to the reason that they don't have any LD containers underfloor.

Well, i think the 32S is easier to fly because it's fly-by-wire. As for winner in terms of fuel economy, it's 738 (i am comparing the 738 fitted with winglets and 320).

 

Soon it might be the A380 that will disappoint them......

Yeah ...... I have the same feeling too.

 

In contrast, Boeing's aircraft has performed better than expected, especially with the 777 series!!

Yeah. The 77W especially.

 

Is TG happy with the performance of their A333? Their A333 are the A330-321s (MAS is A330-322) which means an older type. I suppose they have more problem than MAS?

Not sure if TG is happy with their 333 but since both carriers are operating the same early version ones and have the same engines, i guess they are experiencing the same problems. Not many carriers have the Enhanced-333 (A330-300X). CX, LH, MU, OZ, CI and NW are among the few carriers that i know have the Enhanced-333 (A330-300X). CX is the biggest operator for the type now but NW will take over soon unless they go under which i hope they won't.

[Seth K 3]

I think PIA is not using their 777-200LR to the max. Wonder why on earth they order the 777-200LR for.....??

 

They should fly between IAH-Pakistan with LR, there are tons of Pakistans here and the loads always high.