Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

MAS Privatisation

Recommended Posts

1. Is Malaysia's market in such a way that any full service carrier that tries to operate, will not survive?

 

2. Was there interference in MAB esp during CM's reign? If CM continued to have full control would MAB be in this current state.

"just hire the right people"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hence why I proposed for armchair CEOs to step up the way Tony did. Otherwise it's all talk and no action.

If given the opportunity. Don't underestimate those under privileged.

 

All business need to start with a sound and sustainable business model. Without one, will eventually close shop.

 

We are no longer in the 1980's. Companies like grab, etc are successful for meeting customers want and affordable price. Until mab understand what pax want, it remains unprofitable.

Edited by KK Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence why I proposed for armchair CEOs to step up the way Tony did. Otherwise it's all talk and no action.

This is a discussion forum and everyone is free to express their views. Many people are proud of their national airline and are in pain to see it struggling for so long. Whether they have any ambitions to be a CEO or not is not for us to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a discussion forum and everyone is free to express their views. Many people are proud of their national airline and are in pain to see it struggling for so long. Whether they have any ambitions to be a CEO or not is not for us to say.

 

I've no problems with expressing opinions. I just wondered if those who are so opinionated about the airline is able to turn their opinion into reality. Obviously action speaks louder than words.

 

There's an opportunity here, what with Khazanah considering their options about MAS. So why not grab it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've no problems with expressing opinions. I just wondered if those who are so opinionated about the airline is able to turn their opinion into reality. Obviously action speaks louder than words.

 

There's an opportunity here, what with Khazanah considering their options about MAS. So why not grab it?

It is worth the sacrifice (e.g by giving up current position and renumeration) to make mh profitable and sustainable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is worth the sacrifice (e.g by giving up current position and renumeration) to make mh profitable and sustainable?

 

I don't know, you tell me. TF was in the exact same position and he took they plunge, now he's being put up on the pedestal as a symbol.

 

If you believe that your idea is strong, surely the returns you'll get would be worth your while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan Airlines was destined to collapse thanks to global disasters, the rising cost of flying and an over-indulgent leadership. Then enter a Buddhist monk - turned CEO whose modest management style achieved sky-high profits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then remove the shackle from MH.

Do you want MH to serve only profitable routes? A lot of other carriers have the luxury of cherry picking more profitable routes so they can better allocate their resources. I don't think GA, TG, MH have that luxury when they operate in a relatively low-income base.

 

AK and to a certain extent OD have relatively easy access and exit to a new market (STB doing way below expectations? just drop it after a few months) where as a FSC understands that a new route is usually not profitable for the first 1-2 years and give it a go for the medium to long term.

 

1. Is Malaysia's market in such a way that any full service carrier that tries to operate, will not survive?

It will survive, but only to/from certain markets. KL is surviving (the Netherlands is the biggest EU investor in Malaysia with lots of inbound demand) plus others like NH, CZ, WY etc. KUL is caught between a traveler/mass tourism hub to the north (BKK) with lots of A380s from around the world to the financial hub of southeast Asia to the south (SIN).

 

The inbound traffic demand to KUL is not as high as BKK or SIN (Malaysia lags behind Indonesia and Vietnam for Japan-SEA traffic) coupled with a rather price sensitive and weak currency for outbound traffic for foreign carriers.

 

Until mab understand what pax want, it remains unprofitable.

From reading the forums here, people want MAB to provide SQ service at AK prices - how are they going to make money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want MH to serve only profitable routes? A lot of other carriers have the luxury of cherry picking more profitable routes so they can better allocate their resources. I don't think GA, TG, MH have that luxury when they operate in a relatively low-income base.

 

AK and to a certain extent OD have relatively easy access and exit to a new market (STB doing way below expectations? just drop it after a few months) where as a FSC understands that a new route is usually not profitable for the first 1-2 years and give it a go for the medium to long term.

 

It will survive, but only to/from certain markets. KL is surviving (the Netherlands is the biggest EU investor in Malaysia with lots of inbound demand) plus others like NH, CZ, WY etc. KUL is caught between a traveler/mass tourism hub to the north (BKK) with lots of A380s from around the world to the financial hub of southeast Asia to the south (SIN).

 

The inbound traffic demand to KUL is not as high as BKK or SIN (Malaysia lags behind Indonesia and Vietnam for Japan-SEA traffic) coupled with a rather price sensitive and weak currency for outbound traffic for foreign carriers.

 

From reading the forums here, people want MAB to provide SQ service at AK prices - how are they going to make money?

Except rural air service in Sabah and Sarawak, the country no longer need national service like in 1980's.

 

Believe those insisted on sq service level could always take sq, ek, qr; which quite a number of mnc executives do. Those wanted low cost, there are ak, D7, etc.

 

Airlines business is not limited to o&d traffic. For fsc airlines to be profitable, connecting pax is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except rural air service in Sabah and Sarawak, the country no longer need national service like in 1980's.

 

Believe those insisted on sq service level could always take sq, ek, qr; which quite a number of mnc executives do. Those wanted low cost, there are ak, D7, etc.

 

Airlines business is not limited to o&d traffic. For fsc airlines to be profitable, connecting pax is more important.

SQ/EK/QR etc. adds time and this is especially noticeable for regional destinations. Say you need to fly up to PVG for a meeting and you need to connect via HKG (chances are you'll be delayed a few hours especially in the summer) or SIN (SQ/MI doesn't even offer an early enough morning flight from KUL that'll get you at PVG by 2-3 PM - I know because I just flew this recently and I had to overnight in SG)?

 

A 5 hour journey just became 7-8 hours. FM's schedule certainly doesn't cater for ex-MY business travel (MH388/389 is the ideal time for ex-MY market). What about other cities like MEL, SYD (D7 will be reducing their flights soon), AKL, BOM (OD doesn't have morning flights ex-KUL).

 

You are right that airline business is not limited to O&D, hence I said KUL will lose a lot of connectivity when MH is gone. You do realize that MH doesn't only connects MH passengers right? DE, WY, KL, QR, BA, JL, EY, EK etc. sends their pax on MH flights once they arrive at KUL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MH wont shut down but they may see new investors or new owners, potentially QR. Its too much of a pride to be lost.

Edited by kandiah k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe those insisted on sq service level could always take sq, ek, qr; which quite a number of mnc executives do. Those wanted low cost, there are ak, D7, etc.

Do you honestly think air travel is a binary choice between LCCs and luxury carriers like SQ/EK/QR? If that's the case then subpar FSCs like BA, LH, UA, AA, CA, MU, QF etc might as well shut down already.

 

Airlines business is not limited to o&d traffic. For fsc airlines to be profitable, connecting pax is more important.

Connecting traffic might help fill planes, but it's the high yield O&D traffic that rake in the dough.

 

As Craig pointed out, business travellers in a rush aren't going to make a detour to SIN/DXB/DOH if there's a reasonably comfortable direct option.

 

It's also ironic that those calling for MH to be shut down for the sake of Malaysians are also happy to see Malaysians give their business to foreign competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also ironic that those calling for MH to be shut down for the sake of Malaysians are also happy to see Malaysians give their business to foreign competitors.

 

Therein lies the problem. Malaysians raising a stink about their taxes going down the drain bailing out MH, but flock to the ME3 & SQ whenever they need to fly to destinations MH serves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Therein lies the problem. Malaysians raising a stink about their taxes going down the drain bailing out MH, but flock to the ME3 & SQ whenever they need to fly to destinations MH serves.

 

Many travellers rather transit than taking non stop mean MH is uncompetitive, not well received or irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many travellers rather transit than taking non stop mean MH is uncompetitive, not well received or irrelevant.

 

Or maybe they're just cheap. Having flown on one ME3 airline before I certainly don't see the "wow" factor on any of my flights with them.

 

This is why I don't think it's fair for them to moan & groan about "taxpayers" money down the tubes.

Edited by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or maybe they're just cheap. Having flown on one ME3 airline before I certainly don't see the "wow" factor on any of my flights with them.

 

This is why I don't think it's fair for them to moan & groan about "taxpayers" money down the tubes.

 

There may not be "wow" factor on me3 but they deliver what is expected, convenience and competitively priced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many travellers rather transit than taking non stop mean MH is uncompetitive, not well received or irrelevant.

Maybe from your perspective. A lot of people pay more to be on a nonstop flight.

 

 

There may not be "wow" factor on me3 but they deliver what is expected, convenience and competitively priced.

What did MH promised you but didn't deliver? Convenience of a nonstop flight?

 

ME3 is competitively priced because it requires you to transfer at their hub. Have you seen EK's prices ex-DXB, QR's prices ex-DOH and especially CX's prices ex-HKG (or even a nonstop KUL-DXB on EK)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many travellers rather transit than taking non stop mean MH is uncompetitive, not well received or irrelevant.

As pointed out above, some people value time and convenience more than money.

 

Have you seen the number of daily flights the ME3 have to/from places like SIN and BKK? Clearly, a lot of people fly to those cities via DXB/DOH/AUH. SQ and TG must therefore be uncompetitive, not well received or irrelevant.

 

Believe those insisted on sq service level could always take sq, ek, qr

That's strange. One moment EK and QR are on par with SQ, the next they're rather ordinary:

 

There may not be "wow" factor on me3 but they deliver what is expected, convenience and competitively priced.

Did MH promise flat beds in Y and fail to deliver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...