MAS Privatisation

[Fahiruz 0]

yes good idea just renamed MAS as just MALAYSIAN, after priivatisation.

 

just re-brand as MH then

Edited August 5, 2014 by Fahiruz

[Waiping 12]

MH Airways.

[flee 5]

I think MALAYSIA or MALAYSIAN must be present in the name.

 

They should do a more modern and imaginative livery (not like that on the A380) that shows more Malaysian national character. Ditch the Wau logo and maybe we should have a Kancil featured in the new logo to highlight a new era of a smart airline.

[hm alias 0]

I think MALAYSIA or MALAYSIAN must be present in the name.

 

They should do a more modern and imaginative livery (not like that on the A380) that shows more Malaysian national character. Ditch the Wau logo and maybe we should have a Kancil featured in the new logo to highlight a new era of a smart airline.

Kancil as in kereta kancil??😂😂😂 watched in buletin utama mh now loss rm7million a day..

[KK Lee 5]

 

The objective of rebranding mh is to disassociate the airline with mh370 and mh17. Hence re-use of any current toxic name, code, call sign, logo, etc will defeat the rebranding exercise.

 

If revamp airline is owned by a PLC, the PLC name could be used.

[Newitt 0]

It is pretty difficult not to have the name 'Malaysia'. After all, it is a national icon/airline (well, it may change in the near future). I, for one, am wishing for a comeback of the old red color scheme, or the old livery done in another color, blue perhaps. 'Malaysian Airways' wins my vote.

[Alif A. F. 0]

I think MALAYSIA or MALAYSIAN must be present in the name.

 

They should do a more modern and imaginative livery (not like that on the A380) that shows more Malaysian national character. Ditch the Wau logo and maybe we should have a Kancil featured in the new logo to highlight a new era of a smart airline.

 

IMO, the Wau logo should be kept, it is unique. Because many major airlines in the world use animal (birds) as emblem. Perhaps, a belly logo can be painted just like EK and QR, and ditch that grey underbelly to make the aircraft look a lot less like military aircraft when seen underneath.

[Mr.Bandit 0]

Another type of kite, maybe rather than the one derived from 'wau kucing'?

[flee 5]

IMO, the Wau logo should be kept, it is unique. Because many major airlines in the world use animal (birds) as emblem. Perhaps, a belly logo can be painted just like EK and QR, and ditch that grey underbelly to make the aircraft look a lot less like military aircraft when seen underneath.

Qantas uses the kangaroo, British Airways/American Airlines/Emirates use the national flag. Dragons are also used.

 

If a bird symbol is used instead of the wau, we can have the Sarawak hornbill too...

[Mr.Bandit 0]

Hornbill Skyways? As the one in Sarawak, providing Regional charter flights..

[hm alias 0]

Maybe they could change different type of wau..since we have many type of wau..wau bulan wau kucing wau helang n etc..

[flee 5]

Rebranding is all about giving the brand a new identity. Keeping the wau may be counter productive.

 

If the wau is kept, MH might as well just repaint all the aircraft in the swosh livery. That should do it because it is sufficiently different from the B772 liveries. It will also save a lot of money in not needing to do a rebranding exercise.

[BC Tam 2]

If they do decide to retain the wau logo, at the very least define which direction the thing slants first
Then determine how that logo is applied on the birds' fins (for an airline, you will not get an advertising spot more prime than that triangular patch)
Then see to that poor excuse that adorn the fins of the 380s, flagships of the fleet no less

I suppose only after that then we can proceed to the branding stage .......

[Arthur Van Straten 0]

With all the talk about rebranding, changing colors, names and getting more efficient aircraft,

it seems to me that the overriding question is not addressed. And what is that question then, you may ask? The open sky policy 2015 is my answer.

 

All discussions about rebranding and renaming MAS become mute when you understand the implications of what is to come. If, as a national carrier you are not strong enough to compete with real strong opponents, you will lose that battle.

 

My question. Is there anybody in MAS thinking about a strategy to survive in that open sky policy? If yes, what is the answer, if not MAS is doomed. Whatever branding or color scheme you want to apply.

 

As the regular readers of this board know, I am not a big fan of TSTF. But one thing I have to give him, he did understand the implications of the coming open sky policy. Hence his aggressive opening of international joint ventures.

 

As a thinking point, what would happen if somewhere in 2015 SQ would open a base in KL, with Thai and Garuda as well? I don’t hear anything from the MAS camp on this matter. Read here further for some understanding.

 

https://airlinesairports.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/is-asean-open-skies-a-myth/

 

Cheers

Art

[Izanee 0]

I think it should go back to the retro livery! I agree ''malaysian' or 'Malaysia' or 'mas' or even 'malaysiana' might be good!

[KK Lee 5]

With all the talk about rebranding, changing colors, names and getting more efficient aircraft,

it seems to me that the overriding question is not addressed. And what is that question then, you may ask? The open sky policy 2015 is my answer.

 

All discussions about rebranding and renaming MAS become mute when you understand the implications of what is to come. If, as a national carrier you are not strong enough to compete with real strong opponents, you will lose that battle.

 

My question. Is there anybody in MAS thinking about a strategy to survive in that open sky policy? If yes, what is the answer, if not MAS is doomed. Whatever branding or color scheme you want to apply.

 

As the regular readers of this board know, I am not a big fan of TSTF. But one thing I have to give him, he did understand the implications of the coming open sky policy. Hence his aggressive opening of international joint ventures.

 

As a thinking point, what would happen if somewhere in 2015 SQ would open a base in KL, with Thai and Garuda as well? I dont hear anything from the MAS camp on this matter. Read here further for some understanding.

 

https://airlinesairports.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/is-asean-open-skies-a-myth/

 

Cheers

Art

Mh ailing state could be an excuse to ask for exemption or delay in implemtation like in car industry. Edited August 5, 2014 by KK Lee

[Mohamad Othman 0]

Yes, bring back the tiger stripes from MSA. That would be nice, with strong message for survival.

 

Arthur brought up a good argument. A stiffer competition indeed in the near future. Maybe the new MH (or whatever the new name is) can stick to its present core business values; cabin crews, strong Asean network, established home base and extreme makeover to the other factors (based on customers-driven input).

 

Love to see them soar high again.

[BC Tam 2]

..... As a thinking point, what would happen if somewhere in 2015 SQ would open a base in KL, with Thai and Garuda as well? I don’t hear anything from the MAS camp on this matter

The state MH is in currently, I'm guessing people there are more preoccupied with survival of the entity this month, then next month ......

SQ, TG, GA can plan and do what they want next year unhindered (for now), whether there will be an MH around by then to be of any significance .......

True, the AK group may (and probably will) fill in the void vacated by an impotent MH, but they will be competing from a different locus

[DavidC 0]

IMHO...

 

This is a suitable time to rethink the business model of the national airline. The name and branidng + the logo can come afterwards.

 

Firstly, it is a good time to split the international sector to one airline and the regional/domestic to another. Perhaps the role and business model of Firefly can be expanded to cover the domestic (if necessary) but more importantly, the regional destinations using the B738s. That will not be too difficult to pursue with the aircrafts readily available and skilled manpower, i.e. above the wings personnel.

 

The international sector - a total revamp with complete paradigm shift is required as this has always been the major challenge, esp with many big boys around. The right product-service mix need to be well thought out. Then the product-service positioning and of course, the topic everyone love to talk about, i.e. the logo, the colour scheme, etc,.

 

Below the wings services - outsource to KLAS if necessary. Keep whatever that can really support the branding of the "international airline" sector, i.e. IFC, etc.

 

Just my 2 sen.

... and if it is not too much to ask for, use a proper designer to design their uniforms. Not some amateur from ...

[flee 5]

In case some people missed my previous posting!

 

To be honest, I think MAS should suspend its operations for a while in order to restructure. Then they won't have to deal with day to day problems like missing airplanes or planes downed by SAMs.

 

In MASwings, MAS Kargo, MAS Engineering, and Firefly, they have the basis for a new airline group.

 

MASwings should be allowed to operate in Borneo with high frequency ATR services so that it can connect the major hubs KCH/BKI to the rest of Sabah and Sarawak as well as Kalimantan and southern Philippines.

 

Firefly should continue in its present role linking up the Peninsula as well as with southern Thailand, Sumatra and Singapore. They should also adopt a high frequency model.

 

MAS itself should be restructured to provide point to point regional services direct to its most popular international points of entry, KUL, BKI, and PEN. In addition, it should provide the trunk links to KCH and BKI. This should be a B737-8 Max/A320neo operation for most routes and they should have the A321neo for longer range operations.

 

A longer term objective of this regional unit is to develop more hubs for international routes - JHB, KBR, KCH and perhaps LGK.

 

Long haul operations might be better off as a separate company. Those flights that are over 6 hours should be considered long haul. MH should probably start with two long haul hubs, e.g. KUL on the peninsula and BKI in East Malaysia.

 

MAS Engineering should be further developed to provide MRO not just for the group but also more capacity to serve other airlines. With more work from third parties, economies of scale will kick in, MAS will also benefit from lower costs.

 

Finally, like MAS Engineering (for MRO activities), they should set up something for operations too - MASOps should be responsible for the operations of the whole group's services. That way, good co-ordination and cost efficiency from operations can be achieved.

 

With the airlines broken up into their own segments, each can focus on their own marketing and sales. MASOps can focus on operating its assets most efficiently. MAS Engineering should provide economic MRO services.

 

But alas... I am dreaming!

Edited August 5, 2014 by flee

[Mr.Bandit 0]

Fully agreed if MAS choose going back to retro livery. Even JAL maintains tsurumaru livery during its restructuring period. And what we see now. A success.

[flee 5]

If MAS can follow ALL the steps that JAL took to recover from bankruptcy, that would be the best news!

[leon t 0]

doubt MAS can follow in JAL footsteps as even last couple of years there have been calls for MH to do so to cut its bleeding. The only thing now is to truly privitalised the airline with non-govt linked companies or agencies, and its best to let the present MH be dissolved and a brand new airline and company started and buy from the govt special vehicle that owns MH aircrafts.

But at the same time critically now is for MH too to order its next long range planes to replace its B777s which are at least 14 years old now and above and - as any new order of the say new 777X or A350-9 or -10, will take 3 years before the first plane is delivered.

A new name change is good too - for example to just Malaysian - as like Korean airlines before with its bad accident records and now is known as just Korean. Or just Malaysia Air.

and if possible its best to sell off its 6 A380s = as there have been calls by some for MH to even have not even ordered the A380 at all. Its too large for MH and with just 6 is also not have the economies associated with so few.

[Mike P 0]

doubt MAS can follow in JAL footsteps as even last couple of years there have been calls for MH to do so to cut its bleeding. The only thing now is to truly privitalised the airline with non-govt linked companies or agencies, and its best to let the present MH be dissolved and a brand new airline and company started and buy from the govt special vehicle that owns MH aircrafts.

But at the same time critically now is for MH too to order its next long range planes to replace its B777s which are at least 14 years old now and above and - as any new order of the say new 777X or A350-9 or -10, will take 3 years before the first plane is delivered.

A new name change is good too - for example to just Malaysian - as like Korean airlines before with its bad accident records and now is known as just Korean. Or just Malaysia Air.

and if possible its best to sell off its 6 A380s = as there have been calls by some for MH to even have not even ordered the A380 at all. Its too large for MH and with just 6 is also not have the economies associated with so few.

 

Selling all A380? = eradicating all MH premium service? What other better plane can be replacing? Without A380, is MH still even a bit on par with the SQ

[KK Lee 5]

and if possible its best to sell off its 6 A380s = as there have been calls by some for MH to even have not even ordered the A380 at all. Its too large for MH and with just 6 is also not have the economies associated with so few.

Operation cost of a380 is only 2 to 3% higher than 744 and has the lowest cask. The issue is not a380 is over capacity or fleet size too small but mh will still loss money even if a380 is filled.

Edited August 6, 2014 by KK Lee