Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
reezal

Malaysia Airlines buying 36 new turboprop aircraft

Recommended Posts

Maswings could always keep 2 ATR for LMN and MZV. Although CRJ/ERJ fuel cost is higher but faster speed means Maswings could squeeze in additional revenue flights at the end of day.

 

FY is profitable because SZB is the preferred airport and commanding a premium fare. If FY is to operate ERJ/CRJ, FY fare increment could more than pay for additional fuel.

 

AF, LH, KL, etc are operating a variety of ERJ/CRJ even fuel guzzler BAe-146, F-70, F-100 and profitable.

 

If MH believe in keeping the fleet simple than MH shouldn't consider transit pax, optimize load/yield or joining OW, and should become a full fledged LCC. MH record show its current business model is unprofitable.

It's more than just fuel they would have to worry for when you add a new type to the fleet. You have to train the pilots how the fly the plane, it will cost quite a lot to send their pilots for simulator training. Next, maintenance costs will also increase as MAS Engineering will have no experience of this type nor do they have the facilities. So they have to pay more money to send engineers and tehcninicians for training and purchase the necessary equipment to operate and fix the plane when their scheduled checks arrive and isn't SZB turboprop ops only? That fact alone makes the ERJ or CRJ not viable for MAS as it would mean they have to move to KLIA to operate these planes. IMO, MAS made a wise choice. They've already operated the type and have recently trained many LAE's for this aircraft, so the experience and knowledge is there. It's just not that easy to just purchase a new type of aircraft. Just because you can squeeze in an extra flight or two doesn't mean you can recoup the money lost just as fast too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just not that easy to just purchase a new type of aircraft. Just because you can squeeze in an extra flight or two doesn't mean you can recoup the money lost just as fast too.

 

I don't think that the time difference between flying a jet & a turboprop on the same route is that large that you can squeeze in a flight or two in the schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night, I was watching FR24 - so many aircraft were circling, waiting for their turn to land at KLIA. There is not much point being faster if it has to circle and wait for its landing slot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must MH limit CRJ/ERJ at SZB and not base at KUL? At KUL, CRJ/ERJ could compliment 738 by providing daily or multiple daily to destinations that are unprofitable for 738 and to feed MH network.

 

If a airline couldn't justify training, maintenance, etc, it shouldn't be in business at the first place. MH is providing ground service to a host of airlines and engineers are rated on aircraft types that MH is not operating.

 

MH current business model is proven to be uncompetitive and unprofitable, remain status quo will not improve the bottom lime.

Edited by KK Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen an aircraft is an aircraft no matter what it is. Jet has their plus things but so do turboprop. Look at it from business point of view. Jet consume more fuel than turboprop so for short sector and low yield turboprop wins but on longer sector with the speed and capacity jet wins. Some airport in borneo couldn't accept jet due to limitations but all airport in malaysia can accept turboprop without limitations. Things to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must MH limit CRJ/ERJ at SZB and not base at KUL? At KUL, CRJ/ERJ could compliment 738 by providing daily or multiple daily to destinations that are unprofitable for 738 and to feed MH network.

 

If a airline couldn't justify training, maintenance, etc, it shouldn't be in business at the first place. MH is providing ground service to a host of airlines and engineers are rated on aircraft types that MH is not operating.

 

MH current business model is proven to be uncompetitive and unprofitable, remain status quo will not improve the bottom lime.

i think when they decided to buy this 36 new turboprop aircrafts, it is a sign they no longer use their "previous" (rather than current) business model which was proven uncompetitive and unprofitable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think when they decided to buy this 36 new turboprop aircrafts, it is a sign they no longer use their "previous" (rather than current) business model which was proven uncompetitive and unprofitable...

 

Whether MH has abandoned their "previous" business mode or not, is remain to be seen.

 

If fuel consumption is the reason for MH to choose ATR than shouldn't MH replace KUL based 738 to PEN, KBR, TGG, LGK, JHB, SIN, etc with ATR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAS clearly stated that these ATRs are for (a profitable) Firefly and MASwings. This order has nothing to do with MAS mainline.

 

MAS is already turning around - the B738s that are replacing the old B734s are a lot more efficient and the capacity has been fine tuned for its current operations.

 

With sizeable B738 and ATR72 fleets, unit costs can be kept low. Operating small sub fleets of all sorts of aircraft will defintely cause a lot of supply chain problems, leading to higher cost of operations and jeopardise profitability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAS clearly stated that these ATRs are for (a profitable) Firefly and MASwings. This order has nothing to do with MAS mainline.

 

MAS is already turning around - the B738s that are replacing the old B734s are a lot more efficient and the capacity has been fine tuned for its current operations.

 

With sizeable B738 and ATR72 fleets, unit costs can be kept low. Operating small sub fleets of all sorts of aircraft will defintely cause a lot of supply chain problems, leading to higher cost of operations and jeopardise profitability.

 

If fuel consumption and common fleet type are top priority, shouldn't MAS replace 738 at KUL with ATR for PEN, AOR, LGK, KBR, TGG, JHB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whether MH has abandoned their "previous" business mode or not, is remain to be seen.

 

If fuel consumption is the reason for MH to choose ATR than shouldn't MH replace KUL based 738 to PEN, KBR, TGG, LGK, JHB, SIN, etc with ATR?

 

But ATR doesn't land in KLIA..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If fuel consumption and common fleet type are top priority, shouldn't MAS replace 738 at KUL with ATR for PEN, AOR, LGK, KBR, TGG, JHB?

1 B738 = 3 AT7

 

Not only fuel, they need to consider other factor as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If fuel consumption and common fleet type are top priority, shouldn't MAS replace 738 at KUL with ATR for PEN, AOR, LGK, KBR, TGG, JHB?

 

Just adding my 2 cents on the conversation...

 

should MAS be buying CRJ/ERJ.....well probably yes in the future as having a smaller plane would mean MAS can have plane full with passengers flying those not so hot routes which can rarely fill up 734 or 738...

 

but for the time being they're streamlining their choice of planes...and buying the ATR is not such a bad idea since the type can be used by both Firefly and MASWings and Firefly is making money operating this type of plane....let say in the near future MAS decides to operate jets on Firefly then some the ATR can possibly be transferred to MASWings to expand their operations...

 

besides I think ATR would make a great short haul commuter airlines that can operate from multiple hubs...currently they have KBR - SIN...in the future who knows if they would restart TGG - SIN or even start TGG - SGN (i'm pretty sure they can fill up a 72 pax plane a few times a week operating from east coast states by looking at the number of people from those states traveling to SGN on a daily basis from KUL based on personal experience)

 

and speaking on if MAS should replace 738 to selected destination with ATR...why should they?...I think they have decent/good load on both the 738 and ATR operating those routes...why should they reduce the capacity by converting 738 to ATR on those routes if the load are decent/good? I would rather MAS fly both 738 and ATR (by Firefly) as per current arrange rather than having only ATR unless of course the 738 are not making money....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just adding my 2 cents on the conversation...

 

should MAS be buying CRJ/ERJ.....well probably yes in the future as having a smaller plane would mean MAS can have plane full with passengers flying those not so hot routes which can rarely fill up 734 or 738...

 

but for the time being they're streamlining their choice of planes...and buying the ATR is not such a bad idea since the type can be used by both Firefly and MASWings and Firefly is making money operating this type of plane....let say in the near future MAS decides to operate jets on Firefly then some the ATR can possibly be transferred to MASWings to expand their operations...

 

besides I think ATR would make a great short haul commuter airlines that can operate from multiple hubs...currently they have KBR - SIN...in the future who knows if they would restart TGG - SIN or even start TGG - SGN (i'm pretty sure they can fill up a 72 pax plane a few times a week operating from east coast states by looking at the number of people from those states traveling to SGN on a daily basis from KUL based on personal experience)

 

and speaking on if MAS should replace 738 to selected destination with ATR...why should they?...I think they have decent/good load on both the 738 and ATR operating those routes...why should they reduce the capacity by converting 738 to ATR on those routes if the load are decent/good? I would rather MAS fly both 738 and ATR (by Firefly) as per current arrange rather than having only ATR unless of course the 738 are not making money....

 

The argument to replace 738 with ATR at KUL is purely from fuel consumption point of view. In real life, lowest fuel consumption may not be the perfect solution as yield and load could more than compensate additional fuel cost.

 

FY is making profit and MH is losing tons of money.Given amount of money MH is burning everyday, no matter how much FY is making won't be enough to make the whole group breakeven. For MH to survive, MH need to attract premium pax and to take advantage of OW membership, MH need to add frequency and destinations. Without the right mix of aircraft, it won't be possible for MH to match demand with supply, optimize yield and load. Given MH credit rating and unlikely to borrow more from the open market, it is more critical to address MH income than FY. Hence, new purchases/capex should be allocated to MH else MH doesn't have the right tool to turn around and profitable.

 

There is no doubt some of MH current 738 routes are profitable. However, MH is still losing tons of money and more need to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no doubt some of MH current 738 routes are profitable. However, MH is still losing tons of money and more need to be done.

 

I thought they have made a small profit last quarter..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to today's report, Garuda's LCC, Citilink Indonesia is ordering 25 ATR72-600s plus 25 options. Lion Air's Wings, then MAS, now Citilink, EADS's setting up of a service base in Singapore seems to bear fruit already. Flights to Johor Bahru, Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu from secondary airports in Indonesia on the plans. Bring on the props!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant beat the economics of the turboprops on short routes. SZB-PEN trip fuel is only 600kg. Plus 50kg for taxi. B737-400 would need 250kg for taxi alone. MYY-BKI trip fuel is about 3000kg ++ if i still remember the figure correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to today's report, Garuda's LCC, Citilink Indonesia is ordering 25 ATR72-600s plus 25 options. Lion Air's Wings, then MAS, now Citilink, EADS's setting up of a service base in Singapore seems to bear fruit already. Flights to Johor Bahru, Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu from secondary airports in Indonesia on the plans. Bring on the props!!

The 600 sim is already in Singapore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is indisputable fact that turboprop fuel consumption is lower than turbofan.

 

On random check of promo fare from KUL and SZB;

FY MH AK

To KBR 139 167 39

To PEN 124 129 74

To SIN 230 285 52

 

Unless AK is losing money on these seats, fuel cost per seat on these sectors is lower than most people expect and FY doesn’t transfer fuel cost saving to consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is indisputable fact that turboprop fuel consumption is lower than turbofan.

 

On random check of promo fare from KUL and SZB;

FY MH AK

To KBR 139 167 39

To PEN 124 129 74

To SIN 230 285 52

 

Unless AK is losing money on these seats, fuel cost per seat on these sectors is lower than most people expect and FY doesn’t transfer fuel cost saving to consumers.

 

So all else being equal, FY sure is making a killing on the multiple SIN runs. (Assuming that the 230 fare you quoted excludes the Changi PSC etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is indisputable fact that turboprop fuel consumption is lower than turbofan.

 

On random check of promo fare from KUL and SZB;

FY MH AK

To KBR 139 167 39

To PEN 124 129 74

To SIN 230 285 52

 

Unless AK is losing money on these seats, fuel cost per seat on these sectors is lower than most people expect and FY doesn’t transfer fuel cost saving to consumers.

 

I guess the key word here is "promo fare". Can we have the look at "average fare" instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per ATR website;

http://www.atraircraft.com/media/downloads/brochure%20ECO_light.pdf

http://www.atraircraft.com/media/downloads/Depliant%20ATR%2072-500-2007.pdf

 

For 300Nm sector, ATR 72 (block time 78 min) and CRJ700 fuel burn is about 854kg and 1,323kg (55% more) respectively; means CRJ700 fuel burn is about only 7kg/seat or RM22/seat more.

 

http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/price-analysis.aspx

 

If CRJ/ERJ is to feed pax to MH mainline, profit contribution to MH will be significant larger than additional fuel cost of RM22.

Edited by KK Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KUCHING: The shortage of aircraft is hampering the second phase of MASwings' expansion plan to fly new routes in the east Asean growth area, or BIMP-EAGA (Brunei, Indonesia Malaysia, Philippines -- East Asean Growth Area).

The airline's chief executive officer, Capt Datuk Mohd Nawawi Awang, said last weekend in Balikpapan, Kalimantan, that MASwings needed six more aircraft "immediately" if it were to fly this year's targeted routes.

 

"I want six planes immediately, but I think I can get only two by April."

 

If the two aircraft were delivered by April, he said, MASwings could continue to build its "air bridge" in the BIMP-EAGA.

 

 

 

Read more: MASwings needs six aircraft - General - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/maswings-needs-six-aircraft-1.213845#ixzz2K7jXECIn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...