Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Jeffery Lim

MAS Scraps Los Angeles

Recommended Posts

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.

By feeding more people through their hub.

 

Sadly KUL is not a big people hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Actually CX will phase out all B744 this year by accelerating their B77W delivery and B744 retirement. The last flight is slated to be on 1st September 2014. They have been mentioning many times over the past few years the A343s and B744 are no longer viable to operate in current economy. At its peak, CX operates 21 B744- 3 retired in 2012, 9 in 2013 and the remainder 12 in 2014. All A343 will be gone by 2015-16 once the A350 delivery starts

 

CX tried to sell their B777-200A, but found no buyers for them therefore decided to keep them and relegated to regional route. Most B77A can be found in South East Asia flight. CX is getting rid of their B747-4F as well to concentrate on B748F only. Last one to leave by 2016.

 

Slosar, the previous CEO, has stated many times: it is either you go very big (i.e. A380) or go for frequencies (i.e. more B77W). CX chose latter to maintain daily multiple flights to almost all their routes. In addition, the operating cost and the impact of high oil price are less severe compared to A343 and B744. It is also the primary reason why CX is not ordering A380 and B748. They also order three extra B77W in Dec 2013 as well.

 

You can read more here:

http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/press/cxw/pdf/CXW194.pdf

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/cathay-pacific-777x-order-ensures-prompt-re-fleeting-while-starting-777x-sales-bonanza-in-asia-146077

http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/article.aspx?id=15&article=32660

 

Same scenario is going on in CI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

That's what I'm wondering as well. LH, BA and QF are operating a lot of 747 and 777 (BA), but you don't hear them whining (too much) about it. Ultimately, they're too blame for not keeping up-to-date with acquiring the latest aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's what I'm wondering as well. LH, BA and QF are operating a lot of 747 and 777 (BA), but you don't hear them whining (too much) about it. Ultimately, they're too blame for not keeping up-to-date with acquiring the latest aircraft.

Hahas!! True, but BA, LH and to certain extend QF, ada duit for buying new toys (B77W, B787, A350, A380, B777-X), MH needs to dig into our EPF if they want to do that. I don't think they want another media firestorm as they had digged many times already.......and ENOUGH ALREADY!! Grrrrr!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's what I'm wondering as well. LH, BA and QF are operating a lot of 747 and 777 (BA), but you don't hear them whining (too much) about it. Ultimately, they're too blame for not keeping up-to-date with acquiring the latest aircraft.

 

...Their ticket prices and priced in stronger currencies are "competitive" with their biggest costs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time fleet renewal was mentioned and MH registered losses, 777 was blamed for being a fuel guzzler. They missed the opportunity to order A350/787 when they ordered A330.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's what I'm wondering as well. LH, BA and QF are operating a lot of 747 and 777 (BA), but you don't hear them whining (too much) about it. Ultimately, they're too blame for not keeping up-to-date with acquiring the latest aircraft.

Julius and Johan. We don't hear about QF, CX and CI will suspend their routes until a suitable aircraft is found. In fact, all of they have better fleet planning than MH. They keep flying their old birds on the same routes until they get new aircraft in.

 

I am just wondering if MH is blaming on their hardware again, you know, the stuff that do not talk but flies. Rather than their 'software' - the people that runs the show and back stage political stuff which bleeds them all the time.

 

Remember that QF is another prime example - though they are retiring their non-ER 744 but the 747-400ER will remain with them for sometime. The 787s have gone to Jetstar and that QF is left with the A330-200/300 and aging B767-300ER.

 

May be sooner or later we will hear the folks nagging about their new A333s aren't so efficient anymore... When they got rid of the 77E...

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julius and Johan. We don't hear about QF, CX and CI will suspend their routes until a suitable aircraft is found. In fact, all of they have better fleet planning than MH. They keep flying their old birds on the same routes until they get new aircraft in.

 

I am just wondering if MH is blaming on their hardware again, you know, the stuff that do not talk but flies. Rather than their 'software' - the people that runs the show and back stage political stuff which bleeds them all the time.

 

Remember that QF is another prime example - though they are retiring their non-ER 744 but the 747-400ER will remain with them for sometime. The 787s have gone to Jetstar and that QF is left with the A330-200/300 and aging B767-300ER.

 

May be sooner or later we will hear the folks nagging about their new A333s aren't so efficient anymore... When they got rid of the 77E...

are you sure? its not like those airlines didnt suspend any routes which they found unprofitable. For example, QF dont fly to KUL (infact QF do not fly to many major cities in the world) and CX will terminate flights to PEN.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure? its not like those airlines didnt suspend any routes which they found unprofitable. For example, QF dont fly to KUL (infact QF do not fly to many major cities in the world) and CX will terminate flights to PEN.....

Adam, you are not reading my comments correctly. Certainly there are airlines that suspend their routes. However, suspending the route temporarily while wait for the right aircraft to arrive and resume the route, IIRC, is rare. MH indicated that they want to return to LAX at some point when they found the right aircraft.

 

I hope they are making the right decision as they seemed to blame here and there. Before you know it 77W, 787 and A350 is blamed for not being efficient enough. Why are they not blaming themselves for not having a good fleet planning skills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you know it 77W, 787 and A350 is blamed for not being efficient enough. Why are they not blaming themselves for not having a good fleet planning skills?

It will be a while before they can do that. The next victim is the 333 :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inside inflight magazine Going Places Apr 2014 issue, Malaysia Airlines already advertised/informed that from 30th Apr 2014 MH will be no longer running flight between Kuala Lumpur (KUL) and Los Angeles (LAX).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone connect from JL61 (LAX-NRT) to MH71to KUL on a Sunday night flight before?

 

I have a booking in June through MH site, and it connects to MH71, scheduled on a Sunday night with departure time 20:15 from NRT. This seems weird to me as I understand MH71 flies only on selected days and Sunday is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...