kandiah k 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 and its a matter of time before MH will stop its service to New York too. It has already been suspended some years back now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leon t 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 oh means MH totally dont fly to US at all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan B. 5 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 Was there KUL-HNL-LAX before ? Yes there was, then it became KUL/TPE/HNL/LAX before HNL was pulled Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zamim 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 Yes there was, then it became KUL/TPE/HNL/LAX before HNL was pulled I can't recall MAS operated to LAX via HNL but MAS did operate KUL-NRT-LAX-HNL-NRT-KUL for a few seasons when MAS fell short of aircraft and drafted in DC10-30. The aircraft operating as MH92/93 and only made a technical stop at HNL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mushrif A 3 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 I can't recall MAS operated to LAX via HNL but MAS did operate KUL-NRT-LAX-HNL-NRT-KUL for a few seasons when MAS fell short of aircraft and drafted in DC10-30. The aircraft operating as MH92/93 and only made a technical stop at HNL In 1991 & 1992, MH operated KUL-TPE-HNL-LAX vv using the 744 combi. 3x /wk. The HNL stop was both ways and MH did sell tickets to HNL. At the same time, MH also offers a 3x/ week KUL-NRT-LAX vv, which I think was operated by the 742. So - 6 x/ wk on 747s...versus the current miserable 4x wk on smaller 772s. Those were the days... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 Those were the days........ when the Malaysian treasury could afford to double up as blood bank to the nation's GLCs (ok lah, perhaps MH wasn't GLC in strictest definition of the term during that period) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 In 1991 & 1992, MH operated KUL-TPE-HNL-LAX vv using the 744 combi. 3x /wk. The HNL stop was both ways and MH did sell tickets to HNL. At the same time, MH also offers a 3x/ week KUL-NRT-LAX vv, which I think was operated by the 742. So - 6 x/ wk on 747s...versus the current miserable 4x wk on smaller 772s. Those were the days... Those were the days, when USD 1 = RM 2.50ish & fuel were cheap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Azizul Ramli 2 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 Some artifacts. The LAX 747-400 launch. NST 29 November 1989 The MEX tag on, NST 9 February 1993. NST, 28 September 1989 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeffery Lim 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 SS Lee, you can always fly KUL-AMS-LAX, but that's another story and Alliance I found a flight which KUL-LHR-LAX, KUL-LHR on MH A380, while LHR-LAX on BA A380 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mohd Azizul Ramli 2 Report post Posted January 28, 2014 A few more from 2001 following the 9/11 attack and during the days where smoking is permitted onboard an aircraft. Oldest photo of MH's present in LAX from A.Net database - 9 May 1987. In June 1987, the aircraft, 9M-MHK, was given a beautiful "Kuala Lumpur - Los Angeles 86" banner to adorn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Michael Report post Posted January 28, 2014 This is sad but hoping MAS recovers really quickly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted January 29, 2014 It is very sad, but it does not look like MAS can do the same as Japan Airlines did in its two years of restructuring. The future looks bleak - expect more bailouts! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kandiah k 0 Report post Posted January 29, 2014 As long as they have heaps of interference, it is very unlikely they will move towards the JL-type recovery, what more if certain pockets keep refilling constantly. Shame Shame!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ashley Lee 0 Report post Posted January 29, 2014 I called them up and I was offered either a reroute via HK onto CX OR via NRT on JAL. The CX-option does however involve an overnight stay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan B. 5 Report post Posted January 29, 2014 In 1991 & 1992, MH operated KUL-TPE-HNL-LAX vv using the 744 combi. 3x /wk. The HNL stop was both ways and MH did sell tickets to HNL. At the same time, MH also offers a 3x/ week KUL-NRT-LAX vv, which I think was operated by the 742. So - 6 x/ wk on 747s...versus the current miserable 4x wk on smaller 772s. Those were the days... At one time, 2 of the 3 weekly HNL/LAX flights were operated by 744 combi and 1 with a full pax 744. So 3 crew (LS, FS and FSS) get to night-stop in HNL for 1 week before joining the next 744 full pax flight. I was lucky to be rostered this patten, it was like the best paid holiday ever! A whole trip to LAX and back would be 21days! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Izanee 0 Report post Posted January 29, 2014 Nice one, I miss those days. I remember MAS used to have Honolulu on their golden holidays brochure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeffery Lim 0 Report post Posted January 29, 2014 I called them up and I was offered either a reroute via HK onto CX OR via NRT on JAL. The CX-option does however involve an overnight stay.I think for NRT, there will be an overnight stay on the return trip as well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuliusWong 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Once MH's pride: *Intra UK flight code share with local partner. Amsterdam to Nordic flights partner with KLM. Now: Edited February 4, 2014 by JuliusWong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lim Kar Yong 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2014 and soon and very soon, the red line that connects to Los Angeles will be gone! Looks rather naked .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 Some interesting comments made here: http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/20140214234359/Article/index_html Could MH be looking at the A350/B77W combo to replace their B772s? "I am not certain if it would be the Airbus A380, but there are a number of options that we are looking at. "The newer generations of Boeing or Airbus aircraft, like the B777-300 extended range or A350, would be attractive for that route," he said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Suzanne Goh 0 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 What is telling: That they've kept the MH staff onboard. You generally don't do that unless you plan to return, and return soon-ish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike P 0 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 Good to know KUL - LAX would be reinstated some times after receiving the right aircraft! Either B787 or A350? Or even A380 to direct compete with SQ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 What is telling: That they've kept the MH staff onboard. You generally don't do that unless you plan to return, and return soon-ish. Yes, won't be surprised if they used the A380 - scrap the HKG service, get wings fixed, then return to LAX. The route is around 14,200 kms long and the A380's range is about 15,700 km. So, changing the route to a non-stop flight (without NRT stop) might improve its appeal. Also it would be easier to improve yields on the A380. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuliusWong 0 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 Yes, won't be surprised if they used the A380 - scrap the HKG service, get wings fixed, then return to LAX. The route is around 14,200 kms long and the A380's range is about 15,700 km. So, changing the route to a non-stop flight (without NRT stop) might improve its appeal. Also it would be easier to improve yields on the A380. Concur that. From what I understand a lot of US folks like to use Malaysia Airlines or at least prefer the Asian airlines compared to the the inferior US counterparts. Maybe only Delta. Seems like none of the US airlines can compete competitively, in terms of hard products and connectivity, with Asian airlines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted February 16, 2014 First the 747-400 was deemed inefficient and now it is the 777-200ER's time... I wonder how folks like CX and CI managed to keep their 747-400, 777-200A, A340-300 going without nagging about fuel costs and cost of running. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
