Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
D Singh

MAS offers sub par uncompetitive products

Recommended Posts

MH is a GLC, CEO and board members are appointed to implement PM' wish, to protect gomen/PM interest and serve at the PM's pleasure.

 

Competition exert pressure on organization from top to bottom. To develop products systemwide to compete with SQ, QR, TG, EY will take 5 years minimum.

 

Given MH fixed cost is largely fixed despite numerous BTP, to better MH peers is not part of CEO kpi and CEO is on 2 years contract, there isn't any need or incentive for MH to offer competitive products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, fortunately for MH, there are still loyal customers.

I think even more fortunately for MH, there are also 'loyal' Malaysian tax payers :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a chicken or egg thing.

 

They need need money to improve their offering. To get money, they need customers, but customers only come if their offerings are good. So where to go from here?

 

Anyway, fortunately for MH, there are still loyal customers.

 

These loyal customers, who fly with MH through thick and thin should be duly rewarded.

 

I say aye....

Too sad it has been more than 6 months since I last flew MH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These loyal customers, who fly with MH through thick and thin should be duly rewarded.

 

Vast majority are gomen and GLC employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second that.

 

It makes much more sense to offer a twice daily flight than to cut it down to once daily just so they can offer the A380 to SYD.

What i meant was in lieu of one of the A330 flights run the A380, so there would be still be double daily flights one A330 and one A380. This would be a tiny increase in capacity vs 2 747 flights which used to operate the route so it would not fall afoul of government agreements would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i meant was in lieu of one of the A330 flights run the A380, so there would be still be double daily flights one A330 and one A380. This would be a tiny increase in capacity vs 2 747 flights which used to operate the route so it would not fall afoul of government agreements would it?

Considering the fact the 380s are now doing daily flights to CDG and LHR and soon HKG the utilization may be a bit too tight to fit in SYD with existing 6 380s, especially when they still have teething problems that delay the flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the fact the 380s are now doing daily flights to CDG and LHR and soon HKG the utilization may be a bit too tight to fit in SYD with existing 6 380s, especially when they still have teething problems that delay the flights.

 

yeah this may well be, but the A380 is wasted on HKG there is no lack of capacity on this route so why its even flying to HKG is a puzzle to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On MH J class, while most if not all other peers are offering full flat on intercontinental, MH 772 is still angled lie flat. Whisky selection is limited to 12 years old rather than more commendable 18 years old. Headset is non noise cancelling type.

 

 

 

Spritzer mineral water is on the menu instead of S. Pellegrino, Volvic or Evian.

 

p.s. Bottled Evian was given to all pax as bedside drink.

 

yeah this may well be, but the A380 is wasted on HKG there is no lack of capacity on this route so why its even flying to HKG is a puzzle to me.

 

Maximize aircraft utilization else the A380 will be idling at KUL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maximize aircraft utilization else the A380 will be idling at KUL.

 

Maximising the aircraft utilisation is one thing, breaking even the operating cost is another thing. If MAS could hardly fill 290++ seater of A333 daily service (MH72/73) to HKG, how could they justify to put on a 490++ seater on the same route & timing?

 

Morning, day return service to PEK or PVG making more sense than sending her to HKG. At least that is what I was told by airport operation execs in KLIA.

 

Sometime, it is cheaper to let the aircraft sitting idle on the ground instead of putting her up in the air.

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH hard products in J might be below the likes of SQ/CX/EK/QR but from what i gather, their price is very competitive especialy for the Australia-Europe routes. Sometimes the price diffrent can be as big as Euro1000 compared to SQ/CX. At the end of the day if you pay the tix for yourself money talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maximising the aircraft utilisation is one thing, breaking even the operating cost is another thing. If MAS could hardly fill 290++ seater of A333 daily service (MH72/73) to HKG, how could they justify to put on a 490++ seater on the same route & timing?

 

Morning, day return service to PEK or PVG making more sense than sending her to HKG. At least that is what I was told by airport operation execs in KLIA.

 

Sometime, it is cheaper to let the aircraft sitting idle on the ground instead of putting her up in the air.

 

 

:hi:

May be PVG and PEK run won't work well because it requires more time in the air, with 6 hours each way to either PEK or PVG.

 

With CA, MU and CZ only sending their smaller birds (737, A320) to KUL, what makes us think sending A388 to either PEK or PVG will work? IIRC, CA had withdrawn their B757 service to KUL.

 

As for HKG, I believe MH's capacity and schedules were completely screwed up by collaboration with CX. If you check, CX always depart at good timing, leaving MH to pick up the piss early or godly hours flight late at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime, it is cheaper to let the aircraft sitting idle on the ground instead of putting her up in the air.

 

 

:hi:

 

Tell that to MH bean counters.

 

MH hard products in J might be below the likes of SQ/CX/EK/QR but from what i gather, their price is very competitive especialy for the Australia-Europe routes. Sometimes the price diffrent can be as big as Euro1000 compared to SQ/CX. At the end of the day if you pay the tix for yourself money talks.

 

Can't dispute that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH hard products in J might be below the likes of SQ/CX/EK/QR but from what i gather, their price is very competitive especialy for the Australia-Europe routes. Sometimes the price diffrent can be as big as Euro1000 compared to SQ/CX. At the end of the day if you pay the tix for yourself money talks.

J class load on my flight was about 50% include a number of ID fare pax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah this may well be, but the A380 is wasted on HKG there is no lack of capacity on this route so why its even flying to HKG is a puzzle to me.

Many people (including forummers here) doubted that MH will be able to fill the seats on the CDG flights as it is almost equivalent to adding a second daily flight. However, initial bookings are good and load factors are over 80%. Whether this can be sustained or not remains to be seen.

 

With the A380 being a passenger magnet, the same may work on the HKG runs. Lets wait and see what happens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maximising the aircraft utilisation is one thing, breaking even the operating cost is another thing. If MAS could hardly fill 290++ seater of A333 daily service (MH72/73) to HKG, how could they justify to put on a 490++ seater on the same route & timing?

 

Sometime, it is cheaper to let the aircraft sitting idle on the ground instead of putting her up in the air.

They are trying to emulate what SQ does and at the same time to increase the utilization of their 388. With only 6 388, HKG is the perfect choice as it is much nearer to home.

 

 

With CA, MU and CZ only sending their smaller birds (737, A320) to KUL, what makes us think sending A388 to either PEK or PVG will work? IIRC, CA had withdrawn their B757 service to KUL.

Chinese carriers send mostly their narrowbody aircraft to overseas destinations in Asia. But other Asian airlines operating into PEK, PVG and CAN deploy mostly widebody aircraft. If MAS' 388 schedules allow and they can sell the seats, then why not ? That being said, with only 6 388, HKG is a logical choice as it is nearer to KUL compared to PVG while CAN may not be able to generate sufficient yield to support a daily 388 operated flight to CAN.

 

 

 

As for HKG, I believe MH's capacity and schedules were completely screwed up by collaboration with CX. If you check, CX always depart at good timing, leaving MH to pick up the piss early or godly hours flight late at night.

The newly added fourth daily CX flight leaves HKG past midnight too. Anyway, it is entirely MH fault in this. They wanted to increase the utilization of their aircraft and even attempted to move one of their double daily flights to HKG to past midnight from KUL just a few months ago. Loads apparently suffered greatly and they readjusted the schedule again.

 

 

With the A380 being a passenger magnet, the same may work on the HKG runs. Lets wait and see what happens...

If we can refer to SQ 388 operation at HKG, it seems the load on SQ 388 operated flight isn't that encouraging. SQ 388 HKG flight was taken by many A.net users many times already and the flight, so they claimed, was never full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be PVG and PEK run won't work well because it requires more time in the air, with 6 hours each way to either PEK or PVG.

 

Actually, it works perfect, e.g. An A380 arrives from LHR at 0630, 1.5 hrs turn around will make the aircraft ready to dep at 0800. 12 hrs each way of flight time + 1.5 hrs on gnd at outport will make the a/c back in KUL by 2130 or latest by 2200 LT. This is just in time for midnight dep to LHR/CDG again.

 

 

 

Tell that to MH bean counters.

 

It does not work that way in 'Rakyat Di Utamakan' country ........ :acute:

 

 

 

If we can refer to SQ 388 operation at HKG, it seems the load on SQ 388 operated flight isn't that encouraging. SQ 388 HKG flight was taken by many A.net users many times already and the flight, so they claimed, was never full.

 

I read a report published in South China Morning Post with regard to SQ A380 for the first two years of operations (sorry I don't have the link as it was a while a go). SQ claimed that they managed to get an average of 90% load factor for both years (on A380 only) and was very happy about it. With additional A380 in inventory, SQ decided to put the 2nd A380 service to HKG, continuing to SFO.

 

 

 

 

As for HKG, I believe MH's capacity and schedules were completely screwed up by collaboration with CX. If you check, CX always depart at good timing, leaving MH to pick up the piss early or godly hours flight late at night.

 

 

I was told that the boss of Red Minibus was the one who put MH to depart at midnight, minimising competition with its own brigade during daylight operation. When the collaboration was cancelled, it went back to normal schedule. I have no prove though ........ :search:

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that the boss of Red Minibus was the one who put MH to depart at midnight, minimising competition with its own brigade during daylight operation. When the collaboration was cancelled, it went back to normal schedule. I have no prove though ........ :search:

 

 

:hi:

 

Weird things happened during the "collaboration". MH giving away the HND slot is another example. No proof will ever surface though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, it works perfect, e.g. An A380 arrives from LHR at 0630, 1.5 hrs turn around will make the aircraft ready to dep at 0800. 12 hrs each way of flight time + 1.5 hrs on gnd at outport will make the a/c back in KUL by 2130 or latest by 2200 LT. This is just in time for midnight dep to LHR/CDG again

Can't stretch the aircraft utilization too far. MAS is already having problems with their 388 operation now. If they do this, imagine what will happen should 1 or 2 388 suddenly go tech at the same time ? Frequent passengers won't be pleased. Premium passengers also won't be pleased.

 

 

 

I read a report published in South China Morning Post with regard to SQ A380 for the first two years of operations (sorry I don't have the link as it was a while a go). SQ claimed that they managed to get an average of 90% load factor for both years (on A380 only) and was very happy about it. With additional A380 in inventory, SQ decided to put the 2nd A380 service to HKG, continuing to SFO.

 

I see. It's be interesting to see if MAS can experience the same then. But they better do something with their 738 operated flight to/from HKG. Economy Class is so uncomfortable to fly in because of the LCC legroom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it works perfect, e.g. An A380 arrives from LHR at 0630, 1.5 hrs turn around will make the aircraft ready to dep at 0800. 12 hrs each way of flight time + 1.5 hrs on gnd at outport will make the a/c back in KUL by 2130 or latest by 2200 LT. This is just in time for midnight dep to LHR/CDG again.

This kind of LCC scheduling will be too tight. If the aircraft goes tech, the knock on effect will take too long to recover. Flights will need to be cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't stretch the aircraft utilization too far. MAS is already having problems with their 388 operation now. If they do this, imagine what will happen should 1 or 2 388 suddenly go tech at the same time ? Frequent passengers won't be pleased. Premium passengers also won't be pleased.

 

 

 

This kind of LCC scheduling will be too tight. If the aircraft goes tech, the knock on effect will take too long to recover. Flights will need to be cancelled.

 

I agreed with both of you. However, if the intention is to maximise the aircraft utilisation (preferably 16-18 hrs/day) then it should work that way. Remember, all MH's A380s operation should have no less than 4 hrs ground time in both LHR and CDG, which could be used to rectify minor defects.

 

As advertised, the aircraft should not suffer any major defect before it reaches components' 'Mean Time Between Failure' or MTBF and among other things, this is what most operators consider for schedule planning. 'One off failure' is certainly a one off matter.

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agreed with both of you. However, if the intention is to maximise the aircraft utilisation (preferably 16-18 hrs/day)

Air New Zealand used to have a very high utilization of its 744. The daily utilization in the 2000s was around 15 hours per day and this was very high for a full service long-haul fleet. 16-18 hours a day is more like a LCC long-haul operation already, such as D7 which is hitting 19 hours a day!

 

 

 

all MH's A380s operation should have no less than 4 hrs ground time in both LHR and CDG, which could be used to rectify minor defects.

 

'One off failure' is certainly a one off matter.

And so far it has proved not enough again and again. Its LHR flights were retimed a few times in the past couple of weeks and it was not the first or second time this happened... and it also wasn't like the delay was for only for an hour or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with D Singh.

Their products look so disappointing that I don't even bother to look for MH flights.

 

I've flown over 200,000 miles in the past 2 years. Mostly with Sq and I've been very pleased even though I have to do a transit in Changi.

 

I'm biting the bullet and flying MH tomorrow. It's going to either be a keeper, or I'm going to pass on them permanently... Unless.... There is change....

 

I'm in it one hundred percent for the cabin product. Nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I just flew MH from KCH to SIN on the retrojet 738. In terms of competition I'd say the closest is probably Silkair and Silkair doesn't even come close in my view. The food they served (take-it-or-leave-it soggy chicken pie) were pathetic compared to MH (choice of chicken noodles or fish with rice), and not to mention, AVOD!!!

 

For the same price on the same route I'd go for MH anytime. I shall observe and comment when I take MH to CDG next month whether it's on par with SQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with D Singh.

Their products look so disappointing that I don't even bother to look for MH flights.

 

I've flown over 200,000 miles in the past 2 years. Mostly with Sq and I've been very pleased even though I have to do a transit in Changi.

 

I'm biting the bullet and flying MH tomorrow. It's going to either be a keeper, or I'm going to pass on them permanently... Unless.... There is change....

 

I'm in it one hundred percent for the cabin product. Nothing else.

Hey Gavin

 

Yeah i think this is the logical approach that many take with airlines. Which is why I believe MAS had better up its game because they are quite frankly out of their depth.

 

Say you are a business traveler based in Frankfurt and heading to HKG. You have so many different options open to you. CX and LH for starters offering direct flights with CX offering full flat in J. Now lets look at just a subset of the potential 1 stop offering, TG A380 all the way though full flat J, SQ A380 all the way through full flat J, BA full flat J, LX Full Flat J, TK Full Flat J, EY Full Flat J. There are a myriad of other options available but i think i have made my point. Why on earth would anyone pick MAS unless they are forced to, they simply arent even in the running!

 

So its very well and good for the MAS apologists on this board to make excuses for the airline. And of course it does have some good points. However just look at the scenario above, if you arent KUL based and beholden to MAS for scheduling need then I think the case is pretty clear. Malaysia is too small a market for domestic traffic to sustain MAS and besides even if it is Air Asia has the lions share of the market. MAS need premium transit passengers to be viable and with the product it is offering I dont see how that's going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take that MAS apologist statement as a little tongue in cheek. :p An apologist is someone who will fly MH almost exclusively.

 

Believe me.... MH will not, and has never been my most flown airline in any given year. What they do is fill a niche, and fill it satisfactorily.

 

There's enough proverbial gas in my travel tank to go around all the major alliances (even though i try hard to avoid skyteam)

 

 

 

 

 

PS - the CX example FRA-HKG is one i'll definitely avoid. That's an Olympus coffin product since CX289/288 are oped by 744's. Dreadful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...