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

MAS B772 Fleet Decommissioned on 27 January 2016

Which one type of a/c is suitable for MH?  

212 members have voted

  1. 1. A350 or B787

    • A350
      125
    • B787
      87


Recommended Posts

That was done already, when MAS did their capital restructuring. Remember, MAS issued a lot of new shares and EPF had taken up their rights?

 

MH does not own the A380s - a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), Turus Pesawat Sdn Bhd, was established by the govt. to buy the six A380s and also two A330s from them. MH is now leasing the planes (for 20 years) from this SPV.

 

All the off balance sheet financing has helped MAS to look more profitable as it no longer needs to suffer heavy depreciation charges on the new aircraft.

 

See: http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/1120693

Thanks for the detailed explanation, as usual, flee! Since MH has been in red for most of the past few years, I think it would be a better choice for them to lease aircraft rather than buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not accroding to current Boeing schedule. Earliest we will see will be in 2020 when the production starts in full swing. 2019 will be test flight and etc.

 

 

 

Perhaps MH can consider cosmetic upgrading like the seat cover and buff up those wear and tear.......Smarties anyone??

 

8-hour plus flights are gonna be one hell of a psychedelic experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that if the management decides to go with the A350XWB (which is very likely), they're taking slots from D7.

 

So D7 is not taking any of their ordered A350s then? And is this voluntarily on MH part or it is being pressured by certain party ala during the share swap time?

 

On the topic, I am so on board with the choice of A350s over the Dreamliner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still wondering why MH needs 17 long haul intercontinental aircraft - are they planning on going back to CPT, JNB, EZE, etc?

 

If not, how many aircraft do they need to operate the AMS, FRA, LAX and AKL routes at existing and projected frequencies? Wouldn't it be better to upgrade at least AMS (and maybe FRA) to an A380 service?

 

For LAX and AKL, the A359 or B787-10 would probably do. Perhaps, MH should also code share with oneworld partners on LAX like they already do with JFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still wondering why MH needs 17 long haul intercontinental aircraft - are they planning on going back to CPT, JNB, EZE, etc?

 

If not, how many aircraft do they need to operate the AMS, FRA, LAX and AKL routes at existing and projected frequencies? Wouldn't it be better to upgrade at least AMS (and maybe FRA) to an A380 service?

 

For LAX and AKL, the A359 or B787-10 would probably do. Perhaps, MH should also code share with oneworld partners on LAX like they already do with JFK.

 

CPT, JNB, and AKL are do-able with A330-200

 

i think A330-200 could fly as far as moscow, cairo, athens, and istanbul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPT, JNB, and AKL are do-able with A330-200

 

i think A330-200 could fly as far as moscow, cairo, athens, and istanbul

Well even the A333 can do these European destinations. But I do think MH is looking at next gen aircraft as fuel burn is critical these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPT, JNB, and AKL are do-able with A330-200

 

CPT & AKL maybe, JNB I doubt it because the airfield itself is performance restricted to most of ULR twins especially in summer due to its elevation.

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPT & AKL maybe, JNB I doubt it because the airfield itself is performance restricted to most of ULR twins especially in summer due to its elevation.

 

:hi:

 

Around 2003 to 2005, MH was using A330-200 from KUL to BNE. That flight could have extended to AKL, but they didn't use it on AKL.

 

I guess the A330-200 was not suitable in 'someways'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, an A332 could fly non-stop as far as 7000nm, which makes any destination in Europe reachable. However, in an airlines business, distance is not the only factor. It has to be a compromise between fuel and traffic load.

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, an A332 could fly non-stop as far as 7000nm, which makes any destination in Europe reachable. However, in an airlines business, distance is not the only factor. It has to be a compromise between fuel and traffic load.

 

 

:hi:

 

but KE operates A330-200 on ICN-PRG,

Also AF on CDG-NRT

 

thats pretty much the same distance with KUL to AKL,JNB,CPT,IST,CAI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget, the airline has belly cargo revenue to consider - and whilst passenger load capacity is important, so is belly space. The A330/788 options mean a trade off between the two, whereas the 777/A350 option may yield a balanced solution as well as paving the way for future network expansion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons CX gave for not ordering the A388 was that it does not fit their network well. CX carries loads of belly cargo on their flights and the A388 does not have the cargo capacity that CX requires. Hence the B777W was favoured as their B774 replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the exception of 747 combi, belly cargo load should be a ancillary income. If a pax airline couldn't breakeven without sizable belly crago load, the airline should consider become a full fledge cargo airline.

 

History has shown, despite belly cargo capacity, MH is not making profit on 772 route, don't see how they can make profit with A350 and current business model :sorry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to Focus Malaysia, MAS CEO said that 777 will be replaced by A380 and maybe a few Airbus 330 series (if i read it correct its either 332 or 333)

i think replacing 777 with A380 might not make sense in certain routes where load are not so high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think replacing 777 with A380 might not make sense in certain routes where load are not so high

That was what a lot of people said about KUL-CDG.

 

However, MH figured that their oneworld partners will help fill the A380 - now we can fly KUL-CDG-JFK and KUL-LHR-JFK easily as MH has code shares with AA in place.

 

I think KUL-AMS is a good candidate for an upgrade to A380.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what a lot of people said about KUL-CDG.

 

However, MH figured that their oneworld partners will help fill the A380 - now we can fly KUL-CDG-JFK and KUL-LHR-JFK easily as MH has code shares with AA in place.

 

I think KUL-AMS is a good candidate for an upgrade to A380.

 

i know right? thats what i was saying in the first place. i think MH is capable to operate A380 on AMS,FRA,LAX. so no need for 777 replacements, just buy more A380 and A330-200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That is still just an interim replacement, you have everyone else flying more modern and fuel efficient planes - TG, SQ, GA, VN, BI, CX all will have shiny new toys to play with, whilst MH has to make do with A330's? As much as I love the A330 family, the newer 787 & A350's are more economical, more A380 orders should be in place now to ensure early delivery slots, the A380 has proven itself to be the right fit for MH, but it won't cover the entire long haul network as its too big for some routes, so thats where a new replacement for a twin medium-long haul flying is needed inlace of the 772's and older A330's!

 

I think the A350 family is the perfect fit for MH, I don't think having the 787 family would meet MH's needs. But MH can have a split order, theres quite a few that have done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH had better not take too long before placing orders. Even the newly launched Boeing 777-9X already has 259 orders and this will only come on line in 2020.

 

Yes, the A350 looks like the most likely aircraft for MH as it is the only next gen aircraft that can be delivered earliest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This delay in deciding which model deem fit the airline is by no surprise, could be due to MH's tight financial cash flow as the financial is going no where. Further delay proves more costly to MH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This delay in deciding which model deem fit the airline is by no surprise, could be due to MH's tight financial cash flow as the financial is going no where. Further delay proves more costly to MH.

That was why I mentioned refurbishing a few of the old B772s might be a better idea. Then MH can order something for delivery post 2020. That will have a lower cash flow impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making decision to purchase new aircrafts is not that simple but MAS is not new in the business, so why can't they make decision even though they have been evaluating replacement for years now. If MAS were to compete with other operators, decision must be made ASAP, in fact, I would like to see MAS be a launch customer for the very first time. MAS is still lagging even to GA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes we got to remember how much govt. red tape MH has to go through - there is lots of interference from the politicians! :(

 

However, in view of the huge sums of money involved, running an airline well requires good long term planning. Just look at the orders the ME3 airlines placed at the Dubai Air Show yesterday - these orders are for aircraft that will replace aircraft that has yet to be delivered! They are thinking very very far ahead!

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From purchase of A380, A33E and ATR, available of funds to purchase is not a problem.

 

Most senior management at GLC are on contract, they are more concern on their current term results for their contract to be renewed. Acquisition deliver beyond their next contract term is not a priority or overly concern.

 

On big ticket items, management could recommend but decision is made by RM PM. If knowing choice is contrary to management preference, some management may either delay or not recommending :unknw:

Edited by KK Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...