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

[Robert 0]

Oh my.....

 

Kind of related to the discussion in another thread - feel free to merge them

 

 

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

Temporary Limitation on Checked In Baggage Allowance for Kuala Lumpur-Europe Sector

 

In the interest of safety, Malaysia Airlines currently operates a long route to Europe via Egypt airspace, which combined with strong head winds, is delaying flights and limiting the airlines' baggage capacity.

This longer flight path consumes more jet fuel and for safety reasons, Malaysia Airlines has had to impose temporary limitation on checked in baggage allowance. From tonight, 5 January 2016 (until further notice), the airline will only be able to accommodate cabin baggage of up to 7kg – one piece totalling 7kg per Economy Class passengers and two pieces totalling 14kg (up to 7kg per piece) for Business/First Class passengers. Passengers who wish to check in their luggage will be able to do so, however their baggage will only arrive later.

Malaysia Airlines regrets the inconvenience caused to passengers and will deliver stranded baggage as soon as the situation permits. Guests are welcome to contact 1300-88-3000 for enquiries on the status of their checked in baggage.

Connecting passengers travelling on oneworld member carriers with through check in will also have their baggage offloaded.

Malaysia Airlines will continue to assess the changing situation over the region and will update passengers when operations are back to normal. Safety remains the centre of the airline’s operations.

[Mushrif A 3]

This is just ridiculous. There's no commitment when checked baggage will be delivered.

 

Why even bother flying with MH if it is the only airline affected?!

 

And connecting pax will not have their checked baggage as well.

 

Expect chaotic scenes and quarrels at check in tonight. Poor front line staff.

 

Question: couldnt the flights make a quick stop somewhere in the Middle east to refuel? Wouldnt that be a better alternative or would crew run out of hours?

[Azri 0]

This is so bizarre! I have never come across such restriction before. Such an inconvenience!

[Amirul Mazlan 0]

This is very strange. BA flies to LHR too. Why not just copy BA's flight plan. I'm sure it is safe enough.

 

Conspiracy theory : Could someone with very powerful connection using the cargo and baggage hold to stash his/her loot? It could be paper with face printed on it or it could be red mineral 😝

[jani 0]

Question: couldnt the flights make a quick stop somewhere in the Middle east to refuel? Wouldnt that be a better alternative or would crew run out of hours?

 

Was wondering the same. But perhaps the crew issue is the key here.

 

Terrible, whatever it is. Pretty sure some other alternatives could have been found.

[Alif A. F. 0]

Seems that KUL-LHR now takes 15 hours non-stop instead of 13 hours.

[Mushrif A 3]

Is MH insurance coverage requires taking absolutely zero risks (given two hull losses) and navigating over only antarctica etc that it had to resort to this bizzare practice?

 

If flights from SIN can go non stop to western europe and SIN is further away (vs KUL) and those airlines are prob just as safe (until the next incident affecting them), i cant imagine why MH is doing this. Are winds only affecting h's chosen route? Is MH the only carrier from SIN or KUL using such longish route? I imagine it would be less painful to pax to just have a refueling stop but maybe it is too long to position crew and prepare the associated logistics.

[jani 0]

Why not re-route the pax via EK or BA/KL then (or SQ/TG)? And whatever balance is needed between pax/baggage fly on MH (a pretty empty flight!) but I think much better in terms of image.

 

Very sad.. Really pity all involved. Hope management solves issue quickly and not simply just wait for weather to subside.

[Mushrif A 3]

Yeah, that sounds better from a PR perspective and not have pax agitated or pissed off with MH. I m sure some will just swear to never fly on MH again.

[Robert 0]

My family are retuning to the UK today and Im glad that they are on EK instead of having to put up with this nonsense.

[Najib Ramli 0]

This is very strange. BA flies to LHR too. Why not just copy BA's flight plan. I'm sure it is safe enough.

 

Conspiracy theory : Could someone with very powerful connection using the cargo and baggage hold to stash his/her loot? It could be paper with face printed on it or it could be red mineral

 

 

Is MH insurance coverage requires taking absolutely zero risks (given two hull losses) and navigating over only antarctica etc that it had to resort to this bizzare practice?

 

If flights from SIN can go non stop to western europe and SIN is further away (vs KUL) and those airlines are prob just as safe (until the next incident affecting them), i cant imagine why MH is doing this. Are winds only affecting h's chosen route? Is MH the only carrier from SIN or KUL using such longish route? I imagine it would be less painful to pax to just have a refueling stop but maybe it is too long to position crew and prepare the associated logistics.

 

fully agree that this would cause so much inconvenience for the passengers, however it seems that MH is indeed trying to reduce any risks to the absolute minimum...

 

sure MH can copy the BA's or SQ's fligth plan as those are supposedly "safe" enough, but when MH17 was shot down the flight plan was similar to KL not to mention SQ plane was nearby as well...

 

it's extreme but I guess it's just something MH had to do to show that it's putting effort to be safe...

 

on a side note, while BA has excellent safety record, BA149 flew to Kuwait during the invasion in 1990 and the airline did this even with the knowledge of the pending invasion as it was deemed "safe" to do so...luckily the plane did not get blew up in the sky and there's only 1 fatality and it was before the world is as connected as it is right now so the incident did not put BA under the same microscope as MH is righ now for flying into "war" zone

[BC Tam 2]

With the escalating Saudi-Iranian tension, maybe there is possibility MH will have to take an even more southerly path ?

[DaTan 0]

more unessary negative PR

[Azman MN 1]

hmm so many comments against MH, but if I am concerned about my own safety, I would be making negative comments about SQ and BA, etc, I mean, if MH is taking safety precautions, why are SQ and BA not taking the safety precaution?

 

Or lets say that SQ decides to do this, would you call SQ stupid or start questioning MH's safety practices?

[Lim Kar Yong 0]

Travelling to London with only 7kg, and it's winter.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Lim Kar Yong

[Sharil Abdul Rahman 0]

I think someone asked here somewhere - why didn't they follow SQ306? Northerly route and all.

[KK Lee 5]

Wondering who is mh risks consultant and person in charge of risks management.

[Robert 0]

They should plan for a fuel stop, this is a stupid decision which could greatly impact people

[flee 5]

They should plan for a fuel stop, this is a stupid decision which could greatly impact people

Yes, a technical stop is preferable but it also means the flight will take even more time. So, I am not so sure if there is a correct way to do this.

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Yes, a technical stop is preferable but it also means the flight will take even more time. So, I am not so sure if there is a correct way to do this.

 

And it may require a crew change due to duty time limits, which means MH have to have a spare crew ready, which they may not have.

 

I wonder - did Moscow deny MH from flying over Russian airspace or did the Malaysian government impose a ban on the account of MH17?

 

UPDATE: The restrictions have been lifted for LHR

 

Normal baggage allowance on Malaysia Airlines’ flights to London, operated by the A380 aircraft, has been restored with immediate effect.

Baggage limitations however, still apply for flights to Amsterdam and Paris on 5-6 January 2016.

Please refer to our travel advisory section for further updates. Next update expected at 0100GMT/0900 Malaysian local time.

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

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mohd Suhaimi Fariz

[Najib Ramli 0]

I think someone asked here somewhere - why didn't they follow SQ306? Northerly route and all.

 

because that would still involve passing through Afghanistan air space I suppose

[Mushrif A 3]

hmm so many comments against MH, but if I am concerned about my own safety, I would be making negative comments about SQ and BA, etc, I mean, if MH is taking safety precautions, why are SQ and BA not taking the safety precaution?

 

Or lets say that SQ decides to do this, would you call SQ stupid or start questioning MH's safety practices?

 

I would call SQ not-so-clever for not planning a fuel stop.

 

And if it were SQ, SQ would have made clear when baggage are expected to be delivery - and not remain non-committal like MH - and in the interim, there will be some form of compensation.

 

In terms of safety precautions, I guess there must be more to the MH safety story, although folks can conveniently hide behind the " for safety" generic reasoning. And there are different degrees of safety. Like how different airlines have different rules for the operations of smartphones/ PDAs for different stages of the flight.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mushrif A

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

hmm so many comments against MH, but if I am concerned about my own safety, I would be making negative comments about SQ and BA, etc, I mean, if MH is taking safety precautions, why are SQ and BA not taking the safety precaution?

 

Or lets say that SQ decides to do this, would you call SQ stupid or start questioning MH's safety practices?

 

I am in the opinion that the current routing to avoid war zone is commendable.

 

But the no-checked in baggage policy that I found ridiculous.

 

Surely the management can find a solution to satisfy both needs.

 

Pity those who are unluckily involved from both sides. Must be a horrible 2 days event (despite it is being only for 2 days involving 4 flights only).

[Mike P 0]

Why only MH but other other airlines doing this? Weird...

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Why only MH but other other airlines doing this? Weird...

 

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.