MAS Privatisation

[flee 5]

MAB posts lower losses than year before

• Tough competition and volatility in fuel costs and FOREX continue
• 2018 performance impacted by crew shortage
• RASK improved marginally, increasing 2.0% YoY
• Passenger Load Factors remained stable at 78%
• Customer satisfaction index up 4% YoY
• On-time performance improved from a year ago by 2%

See:

https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/news-article/2019/mab-lower-losses-year-before.html

Edited March 4, 2019 by flee

[Holger 0]

"lower" than last year....

Would be nice to get some numbers ;-)

[sweekee 0]

Year after year,hate and boring to heard the official announcement:narrow losses than last year,next phase turnaround plan in progress.

[Pall 0]

Same old same old. Newco MAB was suppose to be a fresh start. New brand, new image and a whole new company. Looks like it never changed a bit since 31st Aug 2015 besides 3 CEOs in less than 4 years.

[flee 5]

They lack strategic direction - no one knows where MAB is headed.

 

Brand overhaul is now overdue - but without a medium to long term strategy, what kind of new brand image is possible?

 

Their financial targets are kicked down the road every year - where and when will this road end?

 

I have not flown on MH for over a year and most of my planned 2019 flights are not with MH - they are not offering any value propositions to me as a pax whereas other airlines have more to offer. So how can MH grow if it isn't attracting more pax to fly with them?

[Chris Tan 0]

I find MH's value proposition to be excellent. No, it doesn't have the most luxurious product around, but shop around enough and you'll find prices that rival Y on more "profitable" airlines.

 

SQ is a great airline, for sure. The pride of Singapore, the envy of Malaysians. Unfortunately, I can't afford SQ, but I can afford MH J. I know which one I'd choose in a heartbeat.

 

And to those who say they'd much rather fly TG over MH to BKK because they offer a more luxurious experience in Y on widebodies - take a look at their recent financial performance. You're essentially benefiting from the misfortune of Thai taxpayers. Notice a pattern?

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

The parent, Khazanah, has just posted a loss of RM6.3 billion for FY2018.

 

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2019/03/05/khazanah-records-weaker-2018-performance-reveals-fresh-mandate/

[KK Lee 5]

The parent, Khazanah, has just posted a loss of RM6.3 billion for FY2018.

 

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2019/03/05/khazanah-records-weaker-2018-performance-reveals-fresh-mandate/

Khazanah received dividends totaling 2.8 billion ringgit, down 10%, while impairments more than tripled to 7.3 billion ringgit. Shares in Malaysia Airlines, which is stuck in a long-running turnaround effort, accounted for about half the impairment tally.

 

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Malaysia-in-transition/Malaysia-sovereign-wealth-fund-marks-1.5bn-loss-over-impairments

[KK Lee 5]

I find MH's value proposition to be excellent. No, it doesn't have the most luxurious product around, but shop around enough and you'll find prices that rival Y on more "profitable" airlines.

 

SQ is a great airline, for sure. The pride of Singapore, the envy of Malaysians. Unfortunately, I can't afford SQ, but I can afford MH J. I know which one I'd choose in a heartbeat.

 

And to those who say they'd much rather fly TG over MH to BKK because they offer a more luxurious experience in Y on widebodies - take a look at their recent financial performance. You're essentially benefiting from the misfortune of Thai taxpayers. Notice a pattern?

TG is suffering from too much meddling from politicians and corruption. Hence, lack of clear business model e.g TG ticket can't check in online on WE operate flight, etc.

 

At mab current service level, it couldn't increase ticket price or yield. Likely remain unprofitable until the whole bod and top management are replaced and adopted a new business model.

Edited March 5, 2019 by KK Lee

[Radzi 2]

At mab current service level, it couldn't increase ticket price or yield. Likely remain unprofitable until the whole bod and top management are replaced and adopted a new business model.

 

Just wondering what "new business model" is suitable for MAB? Any idea?

[flee 5]

Just wondering what "new business model" is suitable for MAB? Any idea?

Isn't that what the CEO and Board were supposed to come up with?

[Chris Tan 0]

Isn't that what the CEO and Board were supposed to come up with?

Yes, but surely the members here would have their own ideas/suggestions?

[flee 5]

Yes, but surely the members here would have their own ideas/suggestions?

Much has been discussed over the past few years but MAB still appears little changed. So lets see how long it takes for them to come up with something different, something creative and something to pull it out from the doldrums.

[Mr.Bandit 0]

Just revive back Firefly turbojet operations. This should cater all domestic routes in East & West Malaysia which are price sensitive while MAB solely focus on international routes.But.... it was my unrealised dream.

[flee 5]

Just revive back Firefly turbojet operations. This should cater all domestic routes in East & West Malaysia which are price sensitive while MAB solely focus on international routes.But.... it was my unrealised dream.

For this to work, FY must be a low cost (but not low fare) airline. All staff should be non-unionised and its focus on achieving the lowest CASK must be its utmost priority.

 

If MH focus on International, it must get its feed from FY (they have to coordinate closely) and its priority should be service excellence at reasonable prices. It should also ensure that it fills its planes.

[RaymondT 0]

 

Just wondering what "new business model" is suitable for MAB? Any idea?

 

First to come to top of mind would be the Air NZ model where their Y runs like LCC, but Y+ and J runs closer to full fledged airlines.

[Alif A. F. 0]

I am curious to know how are the performance of MH's secondary international routes, chiefly BKI - TPE/NRT/PER especially BKI - PER which gets 1x per week schedule btw...

 

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/03/466730/shut-down-or-sell-national-carrier

[sweekee 0]

I am curious to know how are the performance of MH's secondary international routes, chiefly BKI - TPE/NRT/PER especially BKI - PER which gets 1x per week schedule btw...

 

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/03/466730/shut-down-or-sell-national-carrier

As I know,BKI-TPE remain stable around 60% all these day.

[Alif A. F. 0]

As I know,BKI-TPE remain stable around 60% all these day.

Do you have any hint how is the yield like? BKI-HKG was culled few years ago. NRT will be suspended mid this year.

[Pall 0]

Do you have any hint how is the yield like? BKI-HKG was culled few years ago. NRT will be suspended mid this year.

 

Not sure about MH, but AK is enjoying healthy loads between BKI-HKG operating 2x a day.

[Waiping 12]

For this to work, FY must be a low cost (but not low fare) airline. All staff should be non-unionised and its focus on achieving the lowest CASK must be its utmost priority.

 

If MH focus on International, it must get its feed from FY (they have to coordinate closely) and its priority should be service excellence at reasonable prices. It should also ensure that it fills its planes.

 

So meaning to say FY will get jets and based in KUL instead of SZB.

[Chris Tan 0]

For this to work, FY must be a low cost (but not low fare) airline. All staff should be non-unionised and its focus on achieving the lowest CASK must be its utmost priority.

 

If MH focus on International, it must get its feed from FY (they have to coordinate closely) and its priority should be service excellence at reasonable prices. It should also ensure that it fills its planes.

Which airline doesn't want to be as low-cost, low-CASK, full-service and high-fare as possible?

 

If you integrate FY into MH's network to serve as a feeder airline, its cost base will be inherently higher than a true low-cost airline. Throw in "service excellence", and you can forget about reasonable prices if you want to be profitable. And you'd be turning away potential MH customers (especially OW loyalists) who would rather not be on an LCC on the regional connection.

[Suzanne Goh 0]

At mab current service level, it couldn't increase ticket price or yield.

 

That's a good thing for Consumers no?

 

The concern about bailouts as a collective notion is valid. As an individual, work out the per capita cost of all these bailouts, and then make an educated guess of how much MH can't charge because of it.

 

My portion of the bailouts (as a malaysian taxpayer) is miniscule compared to the money I've saved buying J cheapies. Yes, there'll be some people whose travel patterns and routes will show MH as consistently more expensive, but I'm talking about the RM4000 CMB-KUL-CDGs, RM4400 KUL-SYD, RM5000 TPE-KUL-MEL amongst others. Really I've lost count of how many great fares there have been over the years, all because MH can't charge the premium it'd dearly love.

 

It's pointless having all the trimmings, limo service, private suites and what not to fight with SQ or whoever, only for them to charge an arm and a leg and then for me to look in from the outside drooling because I can't afford it.

 

Like they say - even in a Bear market you can make money.

 

The caveat of course is if you don't fly MH at all, in which case, then the point is valid about your money going down the drain.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Suzanne Goh

[flee 5]

So meaning to say FY will get jets and based in KUL instead of SZB.

Yes!

 

Which airline doesn't want to be as low-cost, low-CASK, full-service and high-fare as possible?

 

If you integrate FY into MH's network to serve as a feeder airline, its cost base will be inherently higher than a true low-cost airline. Throw in "service excellence", and you can forget about reasonable prices if you want to be profitable. And you'd be turning away potential MH customers (especially OW loyalists) who would rather not be on an LCC on the regional connection.

Note that I said low cost (CASK) but not low fare (RASK). That means yields will be higher.

 

It is important that FY should not be regarded as an LCC - it shoul be more like a Cathay Dragon or Silkair. With the airline focussed on feeding the MH international network, it should be easier to optimise. With MH focussed on an international network, it should also expand it to offer more international destinations for FY.

Edited March 8, 2019 by flee

[flee 5]

 

That's a good thing for Consumers no?

 

The concern about bailouts as a collective notion is valid. As an individual, work out the per capita cost of all these bailouts, and then make an educated guess of how much MH can't charge because of it.

 

My portion of the bailouts (as a malaysian taxpayer) is miniscule compared to the money I've saved buying J cheapies. Yes, there'll be some people whose travel patterns and routes will show MH as consistently more expensive, but I'm talking about the RM4000 CMB-KUL-CDGs, RM4400 KUL-SYD, RM5000 TPE-KUL-MEL amongst others. Really I've lost count of how many great fares there have been over the years, all because MH can't charge the premium it'd dearly love.

 

It's pointless having all the trimmings, limo service, private suites and what not to fight with SQ or whoever, only for them to charge an arm and a leg and then for me to look in from the outside drooling because I can't afford it.

 

Like they say - even in a Bear market you can make money.

 

The caveat of course is if you don't fly MH at all, in which case, then the point is valid about your money going down the drain.

Therein lies their problem - they can't sell enough of cattle class seats and they can't get good yields from elite class seats. Squeezed at both ends!