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

MAB A350-900 Regional Flights to PEN, BKK, SIN & BKI from 9 December 2017

Recommended Posts

Unlike EK, QR and EY don't have pure-widebody fleets. You'll still find A319/320s on regional and even European routes.

 

QR don't compromise their service level on A320/321 to Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike EK, QR and EY don't have pure-widebody fleets. You'll still find A319/320s on regional and even European routes.

From memory, QR has lie flat business products on their narrow bodies.

 

Edit: A photo I found on Airliners.net

Source Link: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Airways/Airbus-A320-232/2658842/L/&sid=a3e18571dd12ca4ab103cfc4d653e7ca

2658842.jpg

Edited by RaymondT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those lie flats are available on a small number of QR A320s. Not all A320s.

Similarly, GF's A320s have lie flats biz seats too which I think are superior to those on QR's A320s. GF uses these mostly on European flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.therakyatpost.com/business/2016/05/23/malaysia-airlines-getting-two-more-airbus-a350-planes/


KUALA LUMPUR, 23 May 2016:


Malaysia Airlines Bhd (MAB) has exercised a 12-year lease agreement for an additional two new Airbus A350-900s with Air Lease Corporation (ALC), which will be delivered by 2018.


The transaction is pursuant to the option provided under the existing lease agreement for four A350-900s signed by both parties in September last year, it said in a statement today.


“The additional two Airbus A350-900s will complement the existing four that is on order to reach a critical fleet size, allowing standby aircraft for any scheduled maintenance and enabling future network expansion,” said MAB chief executive officer Christoph Mueller.


Powered by two Rolls Royce Trent XWB-84 engines, the A350 aircraft are from ALC’s order book with Airbus.


“Technological and innovative advancements make flying this aircraft a real pleasure and it will bring a whole new experience to our offerings, with the aircraft able to operate non-stop from Kuala Lumpur to London and throughout Asia.”


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, do they really need 6 A359 on top of 6 A380 (assuming the 6 A380 will stay since nobody wants them on the secondary market)?

 

I hope Mueller is involved in this decision and there's a solid reason for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MH may want to deploy the A359 to AKL because currently, their A333s are flying with capacity restrictions. They may also want to put it on one or two of the China routes as demand from the Chinese market has picked up.

 

As for the A380s, I think MH may be able to sell them to BA and/or EK. We have seen EK order two new A380s for expansion and they may take ex-MH planes too, now that they are also partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MH may want to deploy the A359 to AKL because currently, their A333s are flying with capacity restrictions. They may also want to put it on one or two of the China routes as demand from the Chinese market has picked up.

 

As for the A380s, I think MH may be able to sell them to BA and/or EK. We have seen EK order two new A380s for expansion and they may take ex-MH planes too, now that they are also partners.

 

Sorry - this may be a bit off topic. I am just wondering about A333 to Auckland with capacity restrictions. TK also uses A333 between KUL and IST, and I think both city pairs of KUL-AKL and KUL-IST are about the same distance. Is this due to weather conditions, or other factors? Pardon my ignorance for raising this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry - this may be a bit off topic. I am just wondering about A333 to Auckland with capacity restrictions. TK also uses A333 between KUL and IST, and I think both city pairs of KUL-AKL and KUL-IST are about the same distance. Is this due to weather conditions, or other factors? Pardon my ignorance for raising this.

 

The routes are at the limits of the A333's range - that means the aircraft needs to carry a lot of fuel and that there is less room for passengers and cargo. The aircraft also needs to carry reserve fuel for diversions. Yes, weather conditions also play a part sometimes, if the aircraft encounters strong headwinds.

 

Bottom line is that if an aircraft has to operate with payload restrictions, it won't be able to make as much profit as one that has no restrictions.

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The routes are at the limits of the A333's range - that means the aircraft needs to carry a lot of fuel and that there is less room for passengers and cargo. The aircraft also needs to carry reserve fuel for diversions. Yes, weather conditions also play a part sometimes, if the aircraft encounters strong headwinds.

 

Bottom line is that if an aircraft has to operate with payload restrictions, it won't be able to make as much profit as one that has no restrictions.

 

Thanks so much for the explanation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kar Yong, whilst the sector lengths are comparable, the flight planning requirements are somewhat different owing to the limited number of viable alternates available in New Zealand.. Essentially for AKL, the primary alternate is CHC... And given the weather patterns that can sometimes cover the whole country, airlines may have to nominate SYD, MEL or BNE as alternates - which means they must carry the mandatory fuel in case of a diversion from AKL back across the Tasman sea.. This thereby limits potential payload and ultimately affects route profitability.. IST-KUL/SIN no such problem.. You have PEN, JHB, BTM, SZB, HKT, etc as viable enroute and destination alternates. Plus the airports have multiple runways unlike NZ where both CHC and AKL have single runways - an aircraft disabled puts a lot of pressure on the system..

Edited by Sandeep G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone at MAB is now focussed on the introduction of the A359 - it is about one year away and many specs need to be finalised.

 

Lets hope that they come up with a great product. I also hope that there is a new livery and that ghastly A380 livery will be retired along with that aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kar Yong, whilst the sector lengths are comparable, the flight planning requirements are somewhat different owing to the limited number of viable alternates available in New Zealand.. Essentially for AKL, the primary alternate is CHC... And given the weather patterns that can sometimes cover the whole country, airlines may have to nominate SYD, MEL or BNE as alternates - which means they must carry the mandatory fuel in case of a diversion from AKL back across the Tasman sea.. This thereby limits potential payload and ultimately affects route profitability.. IST-KUL/SIN no such problem.. You have PEN, JHB, BTM, SZB, HKT, etc as viable enroute and destination alternates. Plus the airports have multiple runways unlike NZ where both CHC and AKL have single runways - an aircraft disabled puts a lot of pressure on the system..

 

Thanks so much. Learning new stuff everyday :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest is KUL-AKL right at the maximum limitations of the MH A333's?

KUL-AKL is around 5420 nm, A333 range is approximately 5600nm with rounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KUL-AKL is around 5420 nm, A333 range is approximately 5600nm with rounding.

Also got to remember that as Sandeep G mentioned, extra fuel is needed for diversion, with Wellington/Christchurch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and that is why MH is probably going to use the new A359 on this route - the A333 currently flies with payload restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and that is why MH is probably going to use the new A359 on this route - the A333 currently flies with payload restrictions.

 

So I presume this is one of the reasons why AirasiaX has a stopover in Gold Coast before continuing on to Auckland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I presume this is one of the reasons why AirasiaX has a stopover in Gold Coast before continuing on to Auckland?

Correct - this is one of the reasons. The other reasons are more commercial, e.g. Airasia X would like to have some of the higher yield trans-Tasman market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AirAsia offers 43% of the total seat capacity between OOL-AKL as of Apr'16 according to CAPA.

If MH is flying with weight restrictions, how would they do it? Fly with some empty seats? If so, anyone knows how many?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AirAsia offers 43% of the total seat capacity between OOL-AKL as of Apr'16 according to CAPA.

If MH is flying with weight restrictions, how would they do it? Fly with some empty seats? If so, anyone knows how many?

I suspect not so much on the passengers, but more on the underbelly cargo that would be taking the penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A350 being 4-class almost certainly means it is targeted to be the replacement for the A380.

 

A bit sad really, that our new flagship is just SQ's workhorse ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...