Firefly and Citilink Collaboration

[affendi osman 0]

I believed FY won't klill MH, see how SQ operates TR. At least MH group can gain profit instead of lost of million ringgit.

 

TR is not making money. It struggles to stay afloat.....

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

FY should & must take over the domestic division as they have the cost structure to be able to better compete with the AK. Let MH focus on regional & international routes.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

FY should & must take over the domestic division as they have the cost structure to be able to better compete with the AK. Let MH focus on regional & international routes.

 

Hopefully that will be in the card for the upcoming/ongoing MAS restructuring.

 

FY is MH subsidiary. The last time FY ventured into jet and code share with MH, it cannibalized MH's yield.

Until more details is known, not sure how it will benefit FY or MH.

 

Not sure why MH is so stingy with its route even with its sister carrier back then.

 

Hopefully this time around, they get it right. It should be either MH or FY in one particular market, not both.

[flee 5]

Not sure why MH is so stingy with its route even with its sister carrier back then.

 

Hopefully this time around, they get it right. It should be either MH or FY in one particular market, not both.

Well SQ and MI seem to be able to co-exist and complement each other. It is a question of co-ordinating schedules for them.

 

Perhaps MH and FY can still share the route, but MH operates at times when there are more business travellers (and perhaps not on weekends) while FY try to capture the leisure traveller market (flying off peak frequencies).

MH could also just operate the wide body flights - so there will be some product distinction between MH and FY.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

There is a stark distinction between MH-FY and SQ-MI:

 

• SQ and MI are both FSCs whilst MH is a FSC and FY is confused (it claimed to be a 'community' airline, which is neither FSC nor LCC).
• There's a black and white clear cut between SQ and MI, they are actually one entity in disguise as 2. On the other hand, there was grey area between MH and FY most evidently during the FY's short 8 months jet stint in KUL, which saw cannibalism happened within their group. Although route sharing can be applied between the 2 (as done by SQ-MI), since MH is not known to be able to handle complex matter, maybe we should keep its tructure as simple as possible i.e. no route sharing between MH and FY.
• History has proven that MH-FY co-existed at KUL and route sharing in the past is a major major failure. If such idea is to be revisited again as we suggested, it should take a different route because MH must learn from past mistake and that if MH is fooled twice, it is really really shame on them.

[KK Lee 5]

FY should & must take over the domestic division as they have the cost structure to be able to better compete with the AK. Let MH focus on regional & international routes.

 

I believed FY won't klill MH, see how SQ operates TR. At least MH group can gain profit instead of lost of million ringgit.

 

FY can take over the domestic and regional routes from MH and the whole narrow body fleet and run as an LCC without the legacy problems of MH.

 

MH can then focus on restructuring and fly only long haul routes with their widebody A333s and A388s. The B777 fleet can be retired.

 

Then OD can fit in very nicely as a hybrid carrier for those domestic and regional routes that MH no longer ply. I think Malaysia is better off with this kind of carrier since MH cannot make profits on these routes as a FSC.

 

If there are separate ground crews, equipments, facilities, etc handling respective airline, it will be difficult to achieve synergy and productivity.

 

MH relied heavily on high yield GoM travel and don't think those who walk in the corridor of power wanted to be in EY class, MH domestic will be kept for its C class.

[JuliusWong 0]

 

There is a stark distinction between MH-FY and SQ-MI:

 

• SQ and MI are both FSCs whilst MH is a FSC and FY is confused (it claimed to be a 'community' airline, which is neither FSC nor LCC).
• There's a black and white clear cut between SQ and MI, they are actually one entity in disguise as 2. On the other hand, there was grey area between MH and FY most evidently during the FY's short 8 months jet stint in KUL, which saw cannibalism happened within their group. Although route sharing can be applied between the 2 (as done by SQ-MI), since MH is not known to be able to handle complex matter, maybe we should keep its tructure as simple as possible i.e. no route sharing between MH and FY.
• History has proven that MH-FY co-existed at KUL and route sharing in the past is a major major failure. If such idea is to be revisited again as we suggested, it should take a different route because MH must learn from past mistake and that if MH is fooled twice, it is really really shame on them.

 

Well written. Aside from the points above, I would like to point out that SQ focus heavily on premium market routes, both for business and leisure travel to certain extent [those who are cash loaded and won't mind to splurge on expensive leisure tickets].

 

MI is all leisure-holiday heavy destinations, less reliant on business travel. There are plans to expand to Korea and Japan in next few years, one of the reasons why they bought B738NG instead of A320ceo.