MAS B772 Fleet Decommissioned on 27 January 2016

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Here's my take on what can be done to rearrange the seating

 

1) Remove Row 5 J seats - it's between the galley & the start of Economy which means it's not the most comfortable J row to be in. Plus, there's not much need for additional J seats anyway.

2) Shrink the Y pitch to 32" - it's standard on the A330 & A380 so why not make it standard on the 777?

 

Do that and you will be able to add roughly 3 - 4 rows to gain around 36 additional Y pax without the need for going 10 abreast, provided the additional seats go in the front end of the Y cabin (or the front part at the rear Y cabin since the last 3 rows are 8 abreast due to the cabin taper).

Edited June 27, 2014 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Vast majority of pax (not just aviation enthusiats) not even know what seat pitch is and how the airlines they are flying with configure their seats. Even if they do, the seating configurations will always come after the price.

 

For those who are not price sensitive, apart from the flight schedules, branding plays an important role. In today's aviation environment, people will look at IFE, meals and service first before seat configurations.

 

In my opinion, for MAS to reduce the seat pitch from 34" to 32" would not damage its "branding". It is a good way to generate more revenue without spending too much.

 

Just my 2 cents

Edited June 27, 2014 by Kee Hooi Yen

[Suzanne Goh 0]

Here's my take on what can be done to rearrange the seating

 

1) Remove Row 5 J seats - it's between the galley & the start of Economy which means it's not the most comfortable J row to be in. Plus, there's not much need for additional J seats anyway.

2) Shrink the Y pitch to 32" - it's standard on the A330 & A380 so why not make it standard on the 777?

 

Do that and you will be able to add roughly 3 - 4 rows to gain around 36 additional Y pax without the need for going 10 abreast, provided the additional seats go in the front end of the Y cabin (or the front part at the rear Y cabin since the last 3 rows are 8 abreast due to the cabin taper).

 

Best suggestion I've heard....

[Lim Kar Yong 0]

I think SQ also has 32" pitch, right. So probabaly won't affect pax comfort very much if the seats are slim.

[Chris Tan 0]

I think SQ also has 32" pitch, right. So probabaly won't affect pax comfort very much if the seats are slim.

Slimmer seats don't necessarily mean more comfort. There was quite an uproar when LH decided to fit their short haul fleet with those Recaro slimline seats.

[Josh T 0]

If the 772s are refurbished with the A380 J seats and the A380/A330 Y seats, these birds can keep flying for quite a few more years!

[flee 5]

When AJ said payback is 3-6 months and the B772s will be retired in 3 years, do you guys think that NEW seats will be used?

[KJ Lim 0]

Looks like it will be seats taken from other retired 777?

[BC Tam 2]

Looks like it will be seats taken from other retired 777?

Which will be a heck lot better than fitting in (smarties) seats from the retired 734s

[Johan Z 0]

Even if they re-use the old seats, it would be quite an overhaul. Adding more seats, means re-wiring is needed for extra PTVs etc. I believe a reconfigured aircraft also needs to be recertified. If their budget allows, they should go with new seats.

[Suzanne Goh 0]

This seat refit is unlikely to go to a 10 abreast config IMHO , if they reuse the old seats.

 

Those seats are assembled in units of 2, and of units of 5 in modular blocks.

 

Pengsan to go and rejig the whole thing (dunno if it is even possible). Much easier to cut pitch.

[Johan Z 0]

I'm not sure if you can reuse 9-abreast seats for 10-abreast. If the width is already fixed, it wonder if it is still possible to squeeze another one.

[KK Lee 5]

I think reducing it to 32" will only affect people who are taller than 180 cm.

 

MH's current high load factor is largely a result of its low fare, high aircraft utilisation policy. Before its current LCC like practice, its load factor was below 70%. I am not sure if the generous seat pitch on their aircraft played a significant role on its load factor.

Yes, most people also don't care if they are in an A333 or B772 - they are not even aware that these are different aircraft types. E.g. MH now serves KUL-TPE with B738 aircraft. Load factors are still high.

 

Due to relatively high cost of living vs income, most locals choose the cheapest option even if it is deceiving e.g. 0.8kg pack milk powder or nuggets instead of 1kg pack, 2.4kg pack washing powder instead of 3kg pack, 3 liter of cooking oil instead 3kg, etc.

 

MH KUL-TPE load on 738 may be high but its market shares has shrink considerably since the days of A300, 744, A330 and A333.

[flee 5]

With EK cancelling their order (see http://www.malaysianwings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19913&hl=fleet), I wonder if MH will look into taking some of their delivery positions? Perhaps an order for 10 of these A359s will be enough for MH's replacement of its soon to be retired B772s. I am sure that EK have some of the early delivery slots too...

[leon t 0]

Anyway MAS do need new planes to replace its ageing B777s which will be close to 20 years by the time the new planes come into service. Bank Negara will set up another special purpose vehicle to buy the new planes for MH or use its existing SPV. But believe Bank Negara SPV/ MH should try and get the A350s and negotiate for AB to take back its A380s.

[KK Lee 5]

Anyway MAS do need new planes to replace its ageing B777s which will be close to 20 years by the time the new planes come into service. Bank Negara will set up another special purpose vehicle to buy the new planes for MH or use its existing SPV. But believe Bank Negara SPV/ MH should try and get the A350s and negotiate for AB to take back its A380s.

A380 has the lowest cask and idea for high density route. If airlines couldn't make money on a380, it won't with any other aircraft type.

[leon t 0]

well while the A380 may have the lowest cask but for MH it doesn't matter much as it been losing money whichever aircraft they fly for the past years and its still too big for MH to fill up the A380 and hence MH have to lower its fares to fill the plane. However new aircrafts like the A350 and 787 have low cask too and even on par with the A380 which from the maintenance side still costs more than any twin engine plane.

[KK Lee 5]

well while the A380 may have the lowest cask but for MH it doesn't matter much as it been losing money whichever aircraft they fly for the past years and its still too big for MH to fill up the A380 and hence MH have to lower its fares to fill the plane. However new aircrafts like the A350 and 787 have low cask too and even on par with the A380 which from the maintenance side still costs more than any twin engine plane.

Whether a380 will work for mh new co will depends on its business model, which remain to be seen.

[flee 5]

well while the A380 may have the lowest cask but for MH it doesn't matter much as it been losing money whichever aircraft they fly for the past years and its still too big for MH to fill up the A380 and hence MH have to lower its fares to fill the plane. However new aircrafts like the A350 and 787 have low cask too and even on par with the A380 which from the maintenance side still costs more than any twin engine plane.

Low CASK allows MH a bigger margin to cut fares if loads are not good. For airlines like EK, low CASK means higher yields.

 

The problem in MH is that it has too few A380s for them to make any meaningful impact to the overall business. I think that had MH continued to operate the gas guzzling B744s, its losses would have been even greater. That is why airlines like SQ, CX and airlines that are leasing B744s have accelerated their retirement.

 

Once newco has agreed their new business model, they should urgently look at what assets are needed to carry out that model. If they plan to abandon long haul to EU, then there is no need to get B772 replacements. But if they wish to continue flying the flag to AMS and FRA, the A350 is now the best aircraft to buy in view of the 75 cancelled EK slots that have now become available.

[leon t 0]

In fact the main crux of MH financial problem and low yield is that its too heavily bog down by high staff count and the other thing is that MH's staff productivity is only at 55% from that of the likes of CX or SQ and even some other Asian and European carriers. Hence its not only the choice of aircraft that MH operates or purchase. As can be seen other international airlines still operate the older B772s and even 744s and they are still making profits and this incl airlines like CX and even SQ which still have a sizeable fleet of older 777s. For MH, the 6 A380 like some said is too few to be operated efficiently on a economic scale and also MH seems to have a harder time filling up the aircraft and hence even lowering its fare to fill up the plane.

[jani 0]

Anyway MAS do need new planes to replace its ageing B777s which will be close to 20 years by the time the new planes come into service. Bank Negara will set up another special purpose vehicle to buy the new planes for MH or use its existing SPV. But believe Bank Negara SPV/ MH should try and get the A350s and negotiate for AB to take back its A380s.

 

Bank Negara?

 

I think you mean Khazanah

[flee 5]

In fact the main crux of MH financial problem and low yield is that its too heavily bog down by high staff count and the other thing is that MH's staff productivity is only at 55% from that of the likes of CX or SQ and even some other Asian and European carriers. Hence its not only the choice of aircraft that MH operates or purchase. As can be seen other international airlines still operate the older B772s and even 744s and they are still making profits and this incl airlines like CX and even SQ which still have a sizeable fleet of older 777s. For MH, the 6 A380 like some said is too few to be operated efficiently on a economic scale and also MH seems to have a harder time filling up the aircraft and hence even lowering its fare to fill up the plane.

I think the difference is that those airlines do not pay leasing fees but they already own the aircraft and are fully paid up. So there are no more fixed costs.

 

Airlines like BA will continue to operate their B744s because they own them and there are no more finance payments to make - so the CASK for those old aircraft will be lower than those airlines who have to lease the aircraft and continue to pay every month.

[Ja Singh 2]

1. 787 buy/lease those that are in storage. 9 units

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AtfsHdXQ5rl9dFp4b1hETmNQNzN0b2dSUlRNWEFOOVE&single=true&gid=2&output=html

 

2. Add 4 existing A380's to the present 6 (like those from cancelled skymark). this option is open for neg with Airbus for price and Mh does not need to buy simulator equipment like in option 1 thus saving millions.Hence all their long haul fleet will compromise of only one type of aircraft.Again this saves $$.and if they can work fast delivery is immediately.

 

3. A350 is not an option as MH failed to plan ahead and it will take years to obtain them.

 

your thoughts guys?

Edited January 7, 2015 by jadivindra

[leon t 0]

MH should not even get more A380s, much less that they should even consider letting go off the existing 6 A380s.

If MH needs a more "immediate" aircraft replacement which it does - the only clear choice would be for the B77-300ER or 77W as delivery can be in around 2 years or slightly less. The A350s would take a longer time to be delivered and MH exisiting 772s are getting on in age and worse have not been refurbished. MH should also order a few more A330s.

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Short term lease for those 787, would not recommend buying these early built frames.

 

Long term order for A350s consisting various subtypes (358 for longer haul not doable with 359 or 35J, 359 as direct replacement for both 772 and 333, 35J for routes that could use more capacity but not enough to justify 380) to maintain fleet commonality and further cut down fleet types. BTW any possibility to secure slots vacated by EK?

 

Just my two cents worth of opinion. In any case they royally messed up their fleet planning big time and they will become even worse off if no immediate decisions made.