MAS offers sub par uncompetitive products

[D Singh 0]

I'll take that MAS apologist statement as a little tongue in cheek. 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.

 

This forum wont let me like anything!

 

+1 I like this! Particularly the coffin remark hahaha :-)

 

..... Also yes Skyteam sucks!

[Christopher Lim 0]

the story ive heard from MAS staff and its own Turnaround dept :

 

" the problem with MAS is not that it is run by idiots. Actually, the management , staff and AJ all know what needs to be done to improve MAS.

 

However, at the end of the day, everything needs to be signed and approved by some higher up in gomen. These fellas know nothing bout running an airline, but get to call all the shots.

 

This is the most frustrating thing. Knowing what needs to be done, but not being allowed to because of government interference watching out for their own private interests. "

[filipeseda 0]

" the problem with MAS is not that it is run by idiots. Actually, the management , staff and AJ all know what needs to be done to improve MAS.

 

However, at the end of the day, everything needs to be signed and approved by some higher up in gomen. These fellas know nothing bout running an airline, but get to call all the shots.

Probably so. Well, any juicy stories to share?

 

It is most certain that MAS offers a hard product that is subordinate to many of its neighboring carriers. However, it must be noted that business travel does not entirely revolve around hard products. It depends on small things like on-time performance, the frequency of flights, the comprehensiveness of network coverage, ground service, business links, airline alliances and the procuring of miles. Look, it's not as simple as looking up photos on a website. Well-travelled business peeps are generally accustomed to sleeping on flights. You're trained for it on the job Does MAS lose out with its seats? Yes, to some extent it does. It's ultimately the legacy of those who came before. But it's entire package (the list aforementioned) is no different from most of the more "comfortable" carriers out there. And it's not to say MAS is located in a strategically deficient area. MAS has done the correct thing by joining an airline alliance as it plugs a gap within the alliance and by extension attracts a substantial population of business related travelers who are already on OW programmes or are from establishments that simply want to get their employees from A to B. It's been paying off. Have you seen the numbers? However, MAS should not slack off. It should continuously upgrade it's products and it would do the airline good by surpassing its immediate competition. But it's not to say that MAS is eons away from the rest of the pack (not just SE Asia).

 

And FYI, about competition on the CDG route, AF has the same J arrangement, if not worse. LH as well! MAS is on par with European carriers.

Edited April 2, 2013 by filipeseda

[D Singh 0]

Probably so. Well, any juicy stories to share?

 

It is most certain that MAS offers a hard product that is subordinate to many of its neighboring carriers. However, it must be noted that business travel does not entirely revolve around hard products. It depends on small things like on-time performance, the frequency of flights, the comprehensiveness of network coverage, ground service, business links, airline alliances and the procuring of miles. Look, it's not as simple as looking up photos on a website. Well-travelled business peeps are generally accustomed to sleeping on flights. You're trained for it on the job Does MAS lose out with its seats? Yes, to some extent it does. It's ultimately the legacy of those who came before. But it's entire package (the list aforementioned) is no different from most of the more "comfortable" carriers out there. And it's not to say MAS is located in a strategically deficient area. MAS has done the correct thing by joining an airline alliance as it plugs a gap within the alliance and by extension attracts a substantial population of business related travelers who are already on OW programmes or are from establishments that simply want to get their employees from A to B. It's been paying off. Have you seen the numbers? However, MAS should not slack off. It should continuously upgrade it's products and it would do the airline good by surpassing its immediate competition. But it's not to say that MAS is eons away from the rest of the pack (not just SE Asia).

 

And FYI, about competition on the CDG route, AF has the same J arrangement, if not worse. LH as well! MAS is on par with European carriers.

 

Excuses Excuses

 

"on-time performance": FAIL

http://www.flightstats.com/go/story.do;jsessionid=92FBBA5A594E8BEC256643EB461E5C79.web3:8009?id=1052

 

"The frequency of flights" Subjective, but I would argue if you arent KUL based : FAIL

 

"The comprehensiveness of network coverage" with recent route cuts MAS is a shadow of itself and pales in comparison to competition : FAIL

 

"Ground Service": Wouldnt say golden lounges or check-in are anything special, but there is atleast book the cook now: PASS

 

"Business Links" : im not familiar with what you mean please elaborate? Are you talking about corporate accounts?

 

"airline alliances and the procuring of miles": About bloody time this is one sensible thing MAS has done just about 10 years too late!: PASS

 

So as I'm not sure MAS has that much going for it and hence a good hard product is imperative! Business class is about the seat. Again to the transit passenger that has choice MAS doesnt look that great.

 

Finally to your last point AF has announced plans for a new full flat C product. Sister brand KLM has already released images of its new C product which will launch in June. LH debuted its new full flat C on the 747-8 last year and is undergoing a fleet refit.

[Mike P 0]

Oh well, I guess after reading this, all passengers won't opt for MH and poor MH is going to suffer another big loss.

[KK Lee 5]

Oh well, I guess after reading this, all passengers won't opt for MH and poor MH is going to suffer another big loss.

 

Not necessary, if MH recognize their offering is second tier and, price it and market accordingly, there are still many price conscious pax will take MH. However, at low yield and MH substantial fixed cost, MH may need to load over 100% to break even.

Edited April 3, 2013 by KK Lee

[Jeffery Lim 0]

As for me as a frequent coach passenger, I would say MH offers the best in terms of seat pitch and food. It's true that iFE is a bit on the downside, as compared to EK or SQ, but for me seat pitch is more important. That is why my flights are always on the 772 or 744 (before they were gone) if possible.

 

Flew EK frequently for past 2 years because MH no longer flies to DXB, but the seats in the 773 or 77W are always a hit and miss. Try having the bread from EK.. you can use that as a baseball, hard and cold.

 

The seats on SQ is not that comfortable as well, just that the IFE is better.

 

Don't even go near to KLM. A torturous 13 hour journey to AMS, even in their new plane.

 

Based on the all the airlines (MH,SQ,CX,EK,KL,CZ,LH,TG) that i have taken so far all in coach, MH is still the best even though the hard product old. Sometimes, it is very subjective on what you think is right or comfortable as compared to others as all of us has different expectation when we fly.

[D Singh 0]

As for me as a frequent coach passenger, I would say MH offers the best in terms of seat pitch and food. It's true that iFE is a bit on the downside, as compared to EK or SQ, but for me seat pitch is more important. That is why my flights are always on the 772 or 744 (before they were gone) if possible.

 

Flew EK frequently for past 2 years because MH no longer flies to DXB, but the seats in the 773 or 77W are always a hit and miss. Try having the bread from EK.. you can use that as a baseball, hard and cold.

 

The seats on SQ is not that comfortable as well, just that the IFE is better.

 

Don't even go near to KLM. A torturous 13 hour journey to AMS, even in their new plane.

 

Based on the all the airlines (MH,SQ,CX,EK,KL,CZ,LH,TG) that i have taken so far all in coach, MH is still the best even though the hard product old. Sometimes, it is very subjective on what you think is right or comfortable as compared to others as all of us has different expectation when we fly.

 

I would agree with this, their economy class isnt bad. But then its economy class this is not where money is made in the airline game (LCC's excluded)

 

Oh well, I guess after reading this, all passengers won't opt for MH and poor MH is going to suffer another big loss.

 

Self-inflicted loss

[Din Hilmi 0]

I would agree with this, their economy class isnt bad. But then its economy class this is not where money is made in the airline game (LCC's excluded)

 

Then I guess MH should change all fleets to J and F class then to make more money and return from black in no time.

[Nor Batrisya 0]

Then I guess MH should change all fleets to J and F class then to make more money and return from black in no time.

good idea.maybe MH could imitate one of SQ business class only flight such as the SIN - EWR route on its A340. MH could refurbished one of its 777s and put it in any good business class loads. Fuel required would be less due to low passengers but income could be high due to premium pay

[D Singh 0]

Then I guess MH should change all fleets to J and F class then to make more money and return from black in no time.

 

Yup!

[KK Lee 5]

Then I guess MH should change all fleets to J and F class then to make more money and return from black in no time.

 

Provided MH can find enough number of pax to pay for the J and F fare.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

good idea.maybe MH could imitate one of SQ business class only flight such as the SIN - EWR route on its A340. MH could refurbished one of its 777s and put it in any good business class loads. Fuel required would be less due to low passengers but income could be high due to premium pay

 

Several problems there:

• SQ will suspend all its all J class non stop services to EWR and LAX in October and November 2013 respectively. http://airlineroute.net/2012/12/18/sq-ewrlax-oct13cxld/
• SQ will 'trade-in' its entire fleet of A340-500 (5 frames in total) to Airbus in return for 5 A380 and 20 A359. http://www.malaysianwings.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=18313
• SQ has a stable pool of premium passengers and serves 5 gateways in the US (IAH, LAX, EWR, JFK and SFO) with decent frequencies. LAX and SFO are serve with the A380. In response, MH, after a much streamlined supply vs. demand analysis and business turnaround plans, come to the point that its demand is only for a 3 weekly B772 service to LAX and even that service is rumoured to be heavily unprofitable and is subjected to a suspension following MH's entry into oneworld. (Refer to the oneworld thread and google for some threads in A.Net about it, the news about MH codeshares to the US with JL and AA).
• In short, an excellently managed, profit, innovation and prestige driven airline like SQ has proven that such service is economically unviable. Hence a much inferior airline like MH logically should not be even thinking of doing so.
• The 777 type on MH's fleet is the -200ER variant. Other than MRA's record breaking journey from SEA to KUL in 1997 (which was flown almost empty with the exception of cockpit, maintenance, Boeing and MH crews), I do not think the type has the range to do KUL-EWR non stop. SEA-KUL is 8,074 miles. KUL-EWR is even further at 9,430 miles. The current record holder for the longest commercial service on the B777-200ER by distance is CX's HKG-EWR at 8,065 miles.
• Again, in order to offer such service, premium demand has to be huge, fuel price has to be reasonably low and the airline needs to invest on a specific type of aircraft for the mission. SQ (and to a certain extent TG much prior) have proven that it is not working out and therefore I think MH should abandon the idea.

What MH could do to its US service is to either:

• Offer a daily frequency to LAX by means of own service or codeshare or combination of both; or
• Withdraw from LAX entirely and just offer a daily codeshare service

which ever gives the higher rate of return.

[Mike P 0]

Several problems there:

• SQ will suspend all its all J class non stop services to EWR and LAX in October and November 2013 respectively. http://airlineroute.net/2012/12/18/sq-ewrlax-oct13cxld/
• SQ will 'trade-in' its entire fleet of A340-500 (5 frames in total) to Airbus in return for 5 A380 and 20 A359. http://www.malaysianwings.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=18313
• SQ has a stable pool of premium passengers and serves 5 gateways in the US (IAH, LAX, EWR, JFK and SFO) with decent frequencies. LAX and SFO are serve with the A380. In response, MH, after a much streamlined supply vs. demand analysis and business turnaround plans, come to the point that its demand is only for a 3 weekly B772 service to LAX and even that service is rumoured to be heavily unprofitable and is subjected to a suspension following MH's entry into oneworld. (Refer to the oneworld thread and google for some threads in A.Net about it, the news about MH codeshares to the US with JL and AA).
• In short, an excellently managed, profit, innovation and prestige driven airline like SQ has proven that such service is economically unviable. Hence a much inferior airline like MH logically should not be even thinking of doing so.
• The 777 type on MH's fleet is the -200ER variant. Other than MRA's record breaking journey from SEA to KUL in 1997 (which was flown almost empty with the exception of cockpit, maintenance, Boeing and MH crews), I do not think the type has the range to do KUL-EWR non stop. SEA-KUL is 8,074 miles. KUL-EWR is even further at 9,430 miles. The current record holder for the longest commercial service on the B777-200ER by distance is CX's HKG-EWR at 8,065 miles.
• Again, in order to offer such service, premium demand has to be huge, fuel price has to be reasonably low and the airline needs to invest on a specific type of aircraft for the mission. SQ (and to a certain extent TG much prior) have proven that it is not working out and therefore I think MH should abandon the idea.

What MH could do to its US service is to either:

• Offer a daily frequency to LAX by means of own service or codeshare or combination of both; or
• Withdraw from LAX entirely and just offer a daily codeshare service

which ever gives the higher rate of return.

 

Hear hear!

[Isaac 0]

The current record holder for the longest commercial service on the B777-200ER by distance is CX's HKG-EWR at 8,065 miles.

Actually it's UA (originally launched by CO), not CX. CX is using the B777-300ER between HKG-JFK.

 

 

Hear hear!

I believe Din Hilmi and D Sings were being sarcastic.

 

Anyway, i think the problem is that other than the First Class and Business Class seats on MAS 388, all the Business Class seats offered on other aircraft types are inferior. The Economy Class on their AVOD equipped 738 too, is very bad. There is already very limited legroom and there are four big conventional IFE boxes per row in Economy Class (any of you know why there are 4 instead of 2 and why the IFE box is the big one not the new slim one ?) which take up even more space! The inflight meals served in this region is subpar too and there surely is nothing 5-star with its meal presentation in Y. It's fine if their main competitors are EU or US carriers but they are not.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Isaac

[Din Hilmi 0]

Well I'm just being realistic. With unsecure financial status it might be hard for MH for delivering a better product as other regional airlines what more with changes of management in short term would add to the inconsistency (not adding the 'invisible hand' yet!). I guess the only thing that important to MH survival at the moment is the superb cabin crews.

 

Nevertheless different people have different opinion. It need an experience to believe it.

[D Singh 0]

Actually it's UA (originally launched by CO), not CX. CX is using the B777-300ER between HKG-JFK.

 

 

I believe Din Hilmi and D Sings were being sarcastic.

 

Anyway, i think the problem is that other than the First Class and Business Class seats on MAS 388, all the Business Class seats offered on other aircraft types are inferior. The Economy Class on their AVOD equipped 738 too, is very bad. There is already very limited legroom and there are four big conventional IFE boxes per row in Economy Class (any of you know why there are 4 instead of 2 and why the IFE box is the big one not the new slim one ?) which take up even more space! The inflight meals served in this region is subpar too and there surely is nothing 5-star with its meal presentation in Y. It's fine if their main competitors are EU or US carriers but they are not.

 

oh i was certainly being facetious, the concept of a MAS all business and first class flight is simply absurd.

 

Issacs' point is spot on MAS operates in a region and on routes where there is simply better out there or the same out there but at a lower cost. Though I would argue that once AA refits all its planes even US carriers are going to offer a better hard product on their long haul route that MAS does.

 

Well I'm just being realistic. With unsecure financial status it might be hard for MH for delivering a better product as other regional airlines what more with changes of management in short term would add to the inconsistency (not adding the 'invisible hand' yet!). I guess the only thing that important to MH survival at the moment is the superb cabin crews.

 

Nevertheless different people have different opinion. It need an experience to believe it.

 

Yes but how is MAS cabin crew going to make up for my sore backside after i have slide down the sloping seat and been given a wedgie? Last i check MAS did not offer complimentary massages in the golden lounge ;-)

 

Business class is about the seat! If MAS prioritized this instead of other folly they could make this happen. If they are really that cash strapped they could offload their remaining stakes in LSG Malaysia and Engine Services. It is not that expensive or impossible to refit a 772. US airlines have done it even during bankruptcy.

[filipeseda 0]

You can argue that DL and US have better seats than MH in J. Enough said. (Sarcmark)

 

You see, again, the deficiencies that MAS faces are not are as simplistic as we all think they are. It's an entire systemic issue. With regards to its current hard product offerings, whilst we may be bamboozled by the choice of seats that MAS made, you get what you get. If you hire a bean counter for an airline, you get a bean counter. MAS is living through the legacy of those who came before. D Singh, if you've read this forum thoroughly enough, you will stumble upon various posts exuding quite a bit of sarcasm and disenchantment towards the upper-echelons at MAS (if that's what you're intending to do) for their myopic view towards hard-product offerings.

 

However, I don't think we should entirely write-off MAS. While they've just joined an alliance, what's the point of being so down about it. It's benefits in terms of attracting customers are clear. Of course it's no panacea. And I beg to differ about MAS' network. It's now has a larger virtual network. To think about it, SQ actually has a pretty unsubstantial network if you remove MI. You're never going to generate an EK out of MH. KUL is no DXB. MH is handicapped by the fact that KL is sandwiched between to truly international hubs and generally lacks business vibrancy that Singapore possesses.

 

Business links- Well, sometimes it's businesses who decide which airlines they're employees patronize. Most of us aren't that high up. And sometimes, there are other considerations that these entities gravitate towards.

Edited April 4, 2013 by filipeseda

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Business links- Well, sometimes it's businesses who decide which airlines they're employees patronize. Most of us aren't that high up. And sometimes, there are other considerations that these entities gravitate towards.

 

Yes, businesses don't actually care whether their staff members arrive with a wedgie or a sore backside, as long as the price is right for them as offered by the Corporate Client department. Once they signed up for an exclusive deal, everyone flies the airline whether they want to or not.

 

Business class is about the seat! If MAS prioritized this instead of other folly they could make this happen. If they are really that cash strapped they could offload their remaining stakes in LSG Malaysia and Engine Services. It is not that expensive or impossible to refit a 772. US airlines have done it even during bankruptcy.

 

It's not as easy as it sounds - you will have to account for lost revenue due to the downtime while the aircraft is being refitted so while the costs of the seats themselves may be reasonable the total costs may not be. I don't think an aircraft refit is a one-week job, but then again I'm not an engineer.

 

Anyone have any ideas when the 777 goes for a D-check?

 

[Isaac 0]

It's not as easy as it sounds - you will have to account for lost revenue due to the downtime while the aircraft is being refitted so while the costs of the seats themselves may be reasonable the total costs may not be. I don't think an aircraft refit is a one-week job, but then again I'm not an engineer.

 

Anyone have any ideas when the 777 goes for a D-check?

There won't be a loss of revenue nor will it affect any of its flights operated by the 777 as MAS 777 are currently underutilized.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

There won't be a loss of revenue nor will it affect any of its flights operated by the 777 as MAS 777 are currently underutilized.

 

Are you sure? How so?

[flee 5]

The MH B777 fleet, like the B747 fleet, is history. MH has probably worked out that it is not economic to refit the aircraft and only use it for two or three years. They retired the B747s without fanfare. I am sure that they will do the same with the B777 when the time comes.

 

It appears that only the European and LAX routes need the B777s. These will probably be retired when MH orders and receives the high gross weight A333s come 2015.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Actually it's UA (originally launched by CO), not CX. CX is using the B777-300ER between HKG-JFK.

 

Yes, it is actually UA, I stand corrected.

 

 

There won't be a loss of revenue nor will it affect any of its flights operated by the 777 as MAS 777 are currently underutilized.

 

Are you sure? How so?

 

I also think that MH's B772 are currently underutilized:

 

• We have this revealed recently by Waiping.

 

Spotted this last Friday. Rego 9M-MRK.

 

 

• Also MH seems to deploy the B772 to destinations that does not need its range - DPS and DAC being the prime example. http://airlineroute.net/2013/03/27/mh-s13update3/ The assignment of the B772 to these destinations seems like MH has a lot of surplus of the type after many of the former B772 stations are replaced by the new A333X.

 

On the book, MH has 17 B772s to serve AMS (daily), FRA (5 weekly), IST (3 weekly), AKL (6 weekly), JED (4 weekly), LAX (3 weekly) and NRT (daily). From these list, IST, JED and NRT will definitely get the new A333X once more frames arrived, leaving the 17 B772 with only AMS, FRA, AKL and LAX to serve.

[Isaac 0]

 

Are you sure? How so?

You can check their flight timetable and see how many flights are currently still operated by the 772.

 

 

The MH B777 fleet, like the B747 fleet, is history. MH has probably worked out that it is not economic to refit the aircraft and only use it for two or three years. They retired the B747s without fanfare. I am sure that they will do the same with the B777 when the time comes.

 

It appears that only the European and LAX routes need the B777s. These will probably be retired when MH orders and receives the high gross weight A333s come 2015.

Not sure it'd be wise to replace the 772 with 333HGW in 2015 as none of the "more experienced airlines" are doing so. Besides, certain flights will still be weight restricted even with the 333HGW. Else I think CX will also replace their 343 with the 333HGW in year 2015 but they aren't as they have decided it is worth the wait to replace their 10+ years old 343 with the greener and more technologically advanced 350. So MAS should probably take cue from an airline that has consistently reported a profit year after year

 

Oh, it wouldn't be such a waste should MAS refitted their 772 with new seats a year or two ago. They are slow but it's not too late yet! SQ has started to refit their 772ER with the new fully flat J seats despite having another 14x 333 and 40x 350 (a true replacement for the 772ER) on firm order. That's another airline MAS should take cue from

 

 

 

• Also MH seems to deploy the B772 to destinations that does not need its range - DPS and DAC being the prime example. http://airlineroute.net/2013/03/27/mh-s13update3/ The assignment of the B772 to these destinations seems like MH has a lot of surplus of the type after many of the former B772 stations are replaced by the new A333X.

On the book, MH has 17 B772s to serve AMS (daily), FRA (5 weekly), IST (3 weekly), AKL (6 weekly), JED (4 weekly), LAX (3 weekly) and NRT (daily). From these list, IST, JED and NRT will definitely get the new A333X once more frames arrived, leaving the 17 B772 with only AMS, FRA, AKL and LAX to serve.

Thanks for the list Yes. Seriously underutilized! Edited April 4, 2013 by Isaac

[Lock SH 0]

I doubt A333HGW will be able to match B772ER performance without payload penalty (for EU ops). A333 was never designed to be an ULH aircraft. I did some numbers crunching based on published fig and could not get a sensible answer. I could be wrong though ......

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2013 by Lock SH