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

From airlineroute, MH will introduce A350 service to London beginning 15JAN18 on MH 1/4 service and 05MAR18 for MH 2/3. Configuration is F4J31Y251 (one of the least dense J-cabin but also the only one with a F cabin). F is 1-2-1, J is alternating 1-2-1 and 1-2-2 (same configuration as the 333) and Y is 3-3-3.

 

I trust many on this board are disappointed with the 1-2-2 configuration (to be honest, I am disappointed too and it's just 3 additional J seats in the 1-2-2 configuration, i.e. 3 out of 31 or ~10% of the J-cabin won't have direct aisle access). In a perfect world as an observer/arm chair CEO, I'd love a 1-2-1 configuration but MH has the numbers and reasons why they chose this configuration instead.

 

For anyone who's interested, there are quite a few P class available on the 359 ;)

Edited by Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be talk of a new A350 long haul route apart from LHR. My money is on a CDG service. KL currently has AMS locked down and MAS will have little transit pax in AMS. FRA or maybe even DUS might work with codeshares with airBerlin.

 

But I think it may be myopic to write off a possible KUL-SFO non-stop. I know it will never happen but I believe it is feasible. The times I've been on SQ32 it appears SIA really survives off connecting pax from South Asia. Only 1/5 of passengers were Singaporeans and Americans. There's also a sizeable SE Asian community in the Bay Area, including Malaysians. So a 5x weekly service priced right with the correct mix of transit pax from MAA, BOM, HYD, BLR, BKK, SGN and even SIN might work. Code-share with AA in SF for connections to LAX, ORD, MIA, JFK, PHX, PHL, DCA.

Edited by filipeseda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be talk of a new A350 long haul route apart from LHR. My money is on a CDG service. KL currently has AMS locked down and MAS will have little transit pax in AMS. FRA or maybe even DUS might work with codeshares with airBerlin.

 

But I think it may be myopic to write off a possible KUL-SFO non-stop. I know it will never happen but I believe it is feasible. The times I've been on SQ32 it appears SIA really survives off connecting pax from South Asia. Only 1/5 of passengers were Singaporeans and Americans. There's also a sizeable SE Asian community in the Bay Area, including Malaysians. So a 5x weekly service priced right with the correct mix of transit pax from MAA, BOM, HYD, BLR, BKK, SGN might work. Code-share with AA in SF for connections to LAX, ORD, MIA, JFK, PHX, PHL, DCA.

I'm not sure if CDG is a better bet than AMS, but the former isn't going to net MH more connecting pax than the latter. As for DUS, relying on connecting traffic from a bankrupt partner airline that is more interested in serving leisure destinations probably won't make it viable.

 

Nonstop US routes might sound prestigious but they're awfully expensive to operate. If KUL-SFO is feasible, MH would be jumping at the opportunity. But the fact that MH only served LAX and JFK in recent memory says a lot about SFO.

 

The assumption that SQ31/32 survives purely because of connecting pax is flawed. Sure, connecting traffic helps. But the target market is still high-paying customers who want a quick way to get between SIN, which is a financial hub, and SFO which by extension includes Silicon Valley. The presence of a handful of Malaysians doesn't warrant a nonstop service, or any service for that matter. Those who fly home once a year to visit family probably aren't going to pay USD4000-5000 for a return ticket in J, yet it's this sort of pricing that makes the nonstop service worthwhile. Meanwhile, those heading to/from other South/Southeast Asian cities have plenty of one-stop options. CX, CI, BR, KE, OZ, CZ, MU...the list goes on. If MH were to compete with those airlines, their pricing will have to be attractive (read: low yield).

 

But I guess it doesn't hurt to dream :)

Edited by Chris Tan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if CDG is a better bet than AMS, but the former isn't going to net MH more connecting pax than the latter. As for DUS, relying on connecting traffic from a bankrupt partner airline that is more interested in serving leisure destinations probably won't make it viable.

 

Nonstop US routes might sound prestigious but they're awfully expensive to operate. If KUL-SFO is feasible, MH would be jumping at the opportunity. But the fact that MH only served LAX and JFK in recent memory says a lot about SFO.

 

The assumption that SQ31/32 survives purely because of connecting pax is flawed. Sure, connecting traffic helps. But the target market is still high-paying customers who want a quick way to get between SIN, which is a financial hub, and SFO which by extension includes Silicon Valley. The presence of a handful of Malaysians doesn't warrant a nonstop service, or any service for that matter. Those who fly home once a year to visit family probably aren't going to pay USD4000-5000 for a return ticket in J, yet it's this sort of pricing that makes the nonstop service worthwhile. Meanwhile, those heading to/from other South/Southeast Asian cities have plenty of one-stop options. CX, CI, BR, KE, OZ, CZ, MU...the list goes on. If MH were to compete with those airlines, their pricing will have to be attractive (read: low yield).

 

But I guess it doesn't hurt to dream :)

 

Business pax between South Asia and the West Coast. Frankly UA has the upper hand in J pax because it is the local carrier and has corporate partnerships with Bay Area behemoths like Apple. Nowhere am I suggesting that Malaysia is the primary market... Have you seen the number of casual Singaporean travellers who opt for SQ to the US? On any given flight, very few. And to be honest I don't see how CDG, AMS or FRA will be high yielding either with the ME3. AMS with the added pressure of KL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MH should not lease more A350 than what it requires for LHR. If only 4 is needed, they should not lease 6.

 

Now the old problem of having extra long haul aircraft but nowhere to deploy them (as in the A380 case) still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For BCP, the 6 are needed. As per deployment - expect the "spare" A350s to do a couple of short flights.. this works well for the airline in terms of utilisation and for training purposes. I suspect HKG and maybe BKK will see A350 deployment apart from LHR. DEL or BOM may be good options too if there is a desire to ramp up product to key markets. PVG and PEK would be ideal, if not for the risk of perpetual delay owing to flow control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should follow SQ and put them on the busy KUL-SIN flights :) :)

I think that KUL-SIN is a frequency game for MH, so unlikely. But KUL-DPS, a very popular route that saw the B777 and A330 deployed on this route in the past, is a good candidate for the A350.

Another option MH should consider is to operate LHR-KUL-SYD/MEL as one route and deploy the A350 for this. Then, all 6 A350s will be properly utilised!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree that 4 A350s is cutting it too thin for double daily LHR operations. They should have 5 or 6. Minimum.

 

There are more than enough destinations within MAS's regional network that can sustain (or rather crying out for) widebody operations to maximise aircraft utilization.

 

If anything I think they should get more A350s, with options for the larger A350-1000.

 

Speaking of which, what's the news with the temporary A330s? It's already August. And still no news on long-term widebody replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be talk of a new A350 long haul route apart from LHR. My money is on a CDG service. KL currently has AMS locked down and MAS will have little transit pax in AMS. FRA or maybe even DUS might work with codeshares with airBerlin.

 

But I think it may be myopic to write off a possible KUL-SFO non-stop. I know it will never happen but I believe it is feasible. The times I've been on SQ32 it appears SIA really survives off connecting pax from South Asia. Only 1/5 of passengers were Singaporeans and Americans. There's also a sizeable SE Asian community in the Bay Area, including Malaysians. So a 5x weekly service priced right with the correct mix of transit pax from MAA, BOM, HYD, BLR, BKK, SGN and even SIN might work. Code-share with AA in SF for connections to LAX, ORD, MIA, JFK, PHX, PHL, DCA.

DUS wouldn't work unless there are plenty of travelers between say between PMI/BCN/TFS/AGP etc. and KUL (although that's in question given that AB is in insolvency).

 

SFO is a dream - if MH resumes flights to the US, it'd be to LAX where MH have AA as a partner (AA has very limited service at SFO) and there are greater demand between LA area and KL. Having that said, I wouldn't hold my breath for MH at LAX. You can fly as cheap as $400-500 USD roundtrip on a good day between LAX and KUL on NH/AA.

 

JNB probably has more chances of succeeding than any US destinations, especially with MH's links to secondary Chinese cities.

Edited by Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

787-8 is an ideal fit for MAB if resumption of services to places like JNB is on the cards.. even better would potentially be the proposed 797 - midpoint between 737MAX range and 787 range.. such an aircraft could open up unique connectivity to the thus far underserved East African market Fromm south east Asia - presently monopolised by QR EK and EY, and a lesser extent, ET. Believe connections to Nairobi and Dar Es salam from KL good augur well for connectivity to Mainland China.

 

But such can only be considered when the fundamental route network and house is in order. And whilst the direction thus far appears promising.. the sustainability and deliverables in the months are years to come must be tangible and visible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LHR route is an important route. Despatch reliability is important to MAB. Spare A350 is required, but keeping it on the ground, with depreciating cost, is also bad for MAB. I guess using the "spare A350" on short hop returns 4-6 hours would be ideal.

The spare aircraft can be back in KUL to be turned around for LHR quickly.

 

The "short hop route" (ie BKK, DPS, SIN) can then be replaced by an A330 or B737.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that using the A350 to SYD and MEL could work well for passengers who want to fly in F all the way to LHR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spare A350 is required, but keeping it on the ground, with depreciating cost, is also bad for MAB. I guess using the "spare A350" on short hop returns 4-6 hours would be ideal.

The spare aircraft can be back in KUL to be turned around for LHR quickly.

The A350s are leased - so no depreciation is involved as that is a risk that the lessor will be taking. But MH has to make the lease payments whether the aircraft is on the ground or is flying. So it makes sense to utilise the aircraft productively than let it be a hangar queen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LHR route is an important route. Despatch reliability is important to MAB. Spare A350 is required, but keeping it on the ground, with depreciating cost, is also bad for MAB. I guess using the "spare A350" on short hop returns 4-6 hours would be ideal.

The spare aircraft can be back in KUL to be turned around for LHR quickly.

 

The "short hop route" (ie BKK, DPS, SIN) can then be replaced by an A330 or B737.

I wouldn't complain if the A350s are sent to HKG, like what they did with the A380s a couple of years ago :)

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...