MAB: Temporary Limitation on Checked In Baggage Allowance to LHR, AMS & CDG Imposed Then Retracted

[Mike P 0]

 

Only MH takes the long way via Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Greece. Everyone else flies through Afghanistan & Russia - hence my question about whether there is a ban imposed on MH flying through Russian airspace.

 

Is there a bias on a certain airline to fly on certain countries' airspace? Not to mention that MH or Malaysia are foes of these 2 nations.

 

On FB, people complained like hell... sigh... But luggage can still be checked in and only arrived later... though I'm not sure if MH would arrange the courier service for the luggage in CDG and AMS, but even more complicated for those connecting passengers... very likely there will be mishap of the luggage.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

MH is not exactly the only airline flying to Europe via Saudi Arabia-Egypt-Greece versus the more straight line routing.

 

At the peak of the latest Syrian crisis where a Russian military jet was shot down by the Turkish army on 24 November 2015, some other airlines flew to Europe using the same flight path as MH for quite sometimes. Eg:

 

1. All westbound EY (Etihad Airways) flights between AUH and LHR took a very similar flight path to MH.

2. EY18 LHR-AUH on 31 December 2015 also took a similar routing to MH.

3. EK too has been taking some strange routings into Northern Europe of late.

 

Info provided by my credible spies based in the UAE.

 

I guess it depends on how each airlines determine the risk of flying over Syria and Turkey based on its progress.

 

With Saudi Arabia in the verge of a war with Iran fresh as we speak right now, I am not sure where MH will route its flight to Europe to avoid conflict zones.

[Mike P 0]

MH is not exactly the only airline flying to Europe via Saudi Arabia-Egypt-Greece versus the more straight line routing.

 

At the peak of the latest Syrian crisis where a Russian military jet were shot down by the Turkish army on 24 November 2015 some other airlines flew to Europe using the same flight path as MH for quite sometimes. Eg:

 

1. All westbound EY (Etihad Airways) flights between AUH and LHR took a very similar flight path to MH.

2. EY18 LHR-AUH on 31 December 2015 also took a similar routing to MH.

3. EK too has been taking some strange routings into Northern Europe of late.

 

Info provided by my spies based in the UAE.

 

I guess it depends on how each airlines determine the risk of flying over Syria and Turkey based on its progress.

 

With Saudi Arabia in the verge of a war with Iran fresh as we speak right now, I am not sure where MH will route its flight to Europe to avoid conflict zones.

 

Lightning may strike at the same place twice, for MH, it's a painful ordeal and so high precaution measure would be taken to ensure 100% safety.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

MH is not exactly the only airline flying to Europe via Saudi Arabia-Egypt-Greece versus the more straight line routing.

 

They are the only ones doing it non-stop from South East Asia.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Since these incoveniences will only last for 2 days and involving 4 flights only, and both destinations involved will be terminated within 20 days from now, I think MH has pretty much made up their mind about it.

[calvinoeh 0]

unbelieveable...

[Mushrif A 3]

So much for safety....MH2, -MNB is operating a route through Iranian airspace...

Whilst the two 772 flights remain using the longish route via Saudi airspace

[Mushrif A 3]

It just makes the generic "safety" reason more dodgy and suspicious.

 

Who knows...maybe anti missile defence systems have been installed only on the 380s.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

So much for safety....MH2, -MNB is operating a route through Iranian airspace...

Whilst the two 772 flights remain using the longish route via Saudi airspace

Because people complain like mad when they took the long way & had to leave baggage behind. I see no reason for anyone to be snide now that the airline had concurred with public sentiment.

 

They need to take care of sentiments on the LHR route because they're keeping that.

 

Looking at MH2's Flightradar record they had consistently used the longer route so it's clear that this detour is not really their choice.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Mushrif A 3]

Because people complain like mad when they took the long way & had to leave baggage behind. I see no reason for anyone to be snide now that the airline had concurred with public sentiment.

 

They need to take care of sentiments on the LHR route because they're keeping that.

 

Looking at MH2's Flightradar record they had consistently used the longer route so it's clear that this detour is not really their choice.

 

Hence, all those "safety" reasons given were just sheer nonsense. If it is REALLY unsafe, then no amount of public complaining could suddenly make it safe, could it?

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Hence, all those "safety" reasons given were just sheer nonsense. If it is REALLY unsafe, then no amount of public complaining could suddenly make it safe, could it?

 

Not really nonsense. The public sentiments have shown that they don't give a s#1t about safety, so no point for MAS to take the safe route, just go ahead and fly through even though safety is not guaranteed. It's still much safer to fly the long way around, but Malaysians don't give a s#1t.

 

You want it, you can have it.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

They could have done this many other ways. Reject some cargo maybe, so that they can carry all bags. Or maybe limit the number of pax. Arriving at Europe without your checked in luggage in winter is unthinkable. Besides I don't think they are having that high of a load factor to limit weight. This is logic if they are filled to the brim with pax. Any idea of the load factor to CDG and AMS nowadays? Surely for those two days the load is pathetic..

[flee 5]

Not really nonsense. The public sentiments have shown that they don't give a s#1t about safety, so no point for MAS to take the safe route, just go ahead and fly through even though safety is not guaranteed. It's still much safer to fly the long way around, but Malaysians don't give a s#1t.

 

You want it, you can have it.

It is not that the flying public are not concerned about safety - it is just that they do not agree with the compromise that MAB has chosen for them. Besides, the routes are well within the range of the aircraft, even with headwinds. This is what people don't understand and MAB did not even attempt to explain it, nor give any idea of when their checked in luggage will be delivered.

 

Furthermore, if pax wish to reschedule their travels, they cannot do so without additional costs! This is really bad service recovery on MAB's part. Its behaving like an LCC now.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Reject some cargo maybe, so that they can carry all bags. Or maybe limit the number of pax.

 

While they didn't say it, perhaps they did & still come up short. Also, they may limit the number of pax but perhaps they couldn't make arrangements to transfer the stranded passengers via BA, SQ or EK because all three airlines are full?

 

Besides, the routes are well within the range of the aircraft, even with headwinds.

 

I think this is an issue of max endurance rather than range. As it can be seen, the LHR's flight takes around 15 hours which I believe is the max the A380 can go. If you add in some spare for holding & diversion to alternate, it may be cutting it close. Don't want a repeat of the incident back in 2000 when one MH flight landed at LHR on fumes - the engine died while taxying.

 

Furthermore, if pax wish to reschedule their travels, they cannot do so without additional costs! This is really bad service recovery on MAB's part. Its behaving like an LCC now.

 

Actually, you can do so without additional costs as per the travel advisory

 

 

For Europe bound customers booked to travel between 5 Jan 2016 and 7 Jan 2016 and wish to reschedule their travel, the following voluntary change policies apply.

Impacted Travel Dates: 5 until 7 Jan 2016.

Tickets needs to be reissued on or before: 14 Jan 2016.

Rebooked travel must begin before: 1 February 2016 for MH16 KUL/AMS, MH20 KUL/CDG. Guests on MH16 and MH20 who wish to defer their travel plans beyond 25 Jan 2016 may choose to travel via London.

When rescheduled travel occurs beyond 1 Feb 2016 the change fee will be waived. However, a difference in fare may apply. If travel is not able to be rescheduled within these guidelines, customers may cancel their reservation and apply any unused value of the ticket towards the purchase of a new ticket for a period of one year from the original ticket issuance.

Applicable change fee and fare difference will apply for new travel dates. Final travel must be completed by the end of the ticket’s validity.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[leon t 0]

its just plain ridiculous as few aviation analysts have already pointed out - and in today's papers MH says its only for B777 flights to europe. There are few other carriers that flies the same 777 from europe to KUL or SIN without such baggage restrictions - like British Airways, SIA, Luftansa etc. None of them have such baggage restrictions. Even as some have mentioned, MH could reduce its belly cargo carried in its 777s instead of getting its valued customers to carry less baggage. How on earth can the new MAB even think of such - and in any case by end Jan, MH will cease to operate its 777s to europe.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

its just plain ridiculous as few aviation analysts have already pointed out - and in today's papers MH says its only for B777 flights to europe. There are few other carriers that flies the same 777 from europe to KUL or SIN without such baggage restrictions - like British Airways, SIA, Luftansa etc. None of them have such baggage restrictions.

 

As stated - different flight routes taken which adds distance.

 

Even as some have mentioned, MH could reduce its belly cargo carried in its 777s instead of getting its valued customers to carry less baggage.

 

Who's to say they haven't already? Someone on Airliners (whom I assume work for MH in AMS from the tone of his posts) stated the following

 

Better believe it, but there is a bit more to it. On the previous routing via Iran & Turkey with a full pax load a useful payload of around 8 tonnes was left for cargo. The more southern reroute via Saudia Arabia only further increases the fuel uplift

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[kandiah k 0]

I think their initial press release was not very clear hence the confusion.

[Mushrif A 3]

 

 

 

 

Actually, you can do so without additional costs as per the travel advisory

 

 

MH was being economical with the truth. In some instances, fare difference do apply. One would expect MH to honour the original fare paid.

 

Also, there are many indirect costs associated with last minute change of travel arrangements due to this issue brought about by MH.

 

Not really nonsense. The public sentiments have shown that they don't give a s#1t about safety, so no point for MAS to take the safe route, just go ahead and fly through even though safety is not guaranteed. It's still much safer to fly the long way around, but Malaysians don't give a s#1t.

 

You want it, you can have it.

 

Now this sounds like nonsense.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

MH was being economical with the truth. In some instances, fare difference do apply. One would expect MH to honour the original fare paid.

 

Also, there are many indirect costs associated with last minute change of travel arrangements due to this issue brought about by MH.

 

If the flight's AFTER 1 February then it's reasonable to expect fare difference change because that's the standard date change procedure.

 

Now, do show me where did they state that fare difference applies if you change your flight within January.

[I. Wong 0]

Limitation uplifted, but I think damage is done.

 

http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/travel_advisory/checked_in_baggage_uplifted.html

[V Wong 0]

I can only trust my blind faith in MAB that the real reason for this incident is unspeakable/unmentionable/top secret, for MAB to make such a move and revert it a day later!

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

I can only trust my blind faith in MAB that the real reason for this incident is unspeakable/unmentionable/top secret, for MAB to make such a move and revert it a day later!

 

They did say that it's temporary, so it's never going to be a permanent feature. Perhaps the wind forecast is not as strong as expected?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Mushrif A 3]

 

If the flight's AFTER 1 February then it's reasonable to expect fare difference change because that's the standard date change procedure.

 

Now, do show me where did they state that fare difference applies if you change your flight within January.

 

Is it a regular affair to suddenly announce that no checked luggage will be accepted for a flight? If it is a standard event to happen, then please do apply standard date change procedure. A cash total refund was also not offered.

 

Otherwise, it is not unreasonable to expect MH, as a full service carrier, to lessen the pain and not be seen as trying to penny pinch.

Limitation uplifted, but I think damage is done.

 

http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/travel_advisory/checked_in_baggage_uplifted.html

 

Yup, great negative publicity around the world.

I can only trust my blind faith in MAB that the real reason for this incident is unspeakable/unmentionable/top secret, for MAB to make such a move and revert it a day later!

 

So was there a security threat with checked luggage? Intelligence suggesting threats to CDG or AMS flights?

 

Otherwise, the whole thing was handled so poorly, creating confusion and just bad PR globally.

[V Wong 0]

 

Is it a regular affair to suddenly announce that no checked luggage will be accepted for a flight? If it is a standard event to happen, then please do apply standard date change procedure. A cash total refund was also not offered.

 

Otherwise, it is not unreasonable to expect MH, as a full service carrier, to lessen the pain and not be seen as trying to penny pinch.

 

Yup, great negative publicity around the world.

 

So was there a security threat with checked luggage? Intelligence suggesting threats to CDG or AMS flights?

 

Otherwise, the whole thing was handled so poorly, creating confusion and just bad PR globally.

I don't know the reason, I just don't buy the strong headwind reason. And because I'm blind, I will take whatever MAB feeds me with just a grain of salt, not more. But I'm not blind enough to think twice about switching airlines.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Is it a regular affair to suddenly announce that no checked luggage will be accepted for a flight? If it is a standard event to happen, then please do apply standard date change procedure. A cash total refund was also not offered.

 

Otherwise, it is not unreasonable to expect MH, as a full service carrier, to lessen the pain and not be seen as trying to penny pinch.

 

The procedure's no different than if you're facing a weather related issue or technical issue. Again, it's reasonable to charge a fare difference if you choose to delay your flight by TWO WEEKS OR MORE.