Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sign in to follow this  
jani

Capt Izham Ismail is the New CEO of Malaysia Airlines

Recommended Posts

Hmm... the current CEO for MAS is probably due for a replacement like all the new faces appearing in all Governmental departments. :)

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he? Too bad though as I think he has been managing well under the radar and does not seem like a political appointee.

 

Unless he is one of the dancing CEOs in Shazalli's video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he? Too bad though as I think he has been managing well under the radar and does not seem like a political appointee.

 

Unless he is one of the dancing CEOs in Shazalli's video.

From the outside, it would seem to me that MAB is now lacking purpose and direction. They look like they are lost and drifting in the high seas. MAB needs stronger leadership from its CEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the outside, it would seem to me that MAB is now lacking purpose and direction. They look like they are lost and drifting in the high seas. MAB needs stronger leadership from its CEO.

At current fleet mix, network and overhead, mab is unlikely to make profit anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever reasons, if you don't use the satellite terminal you may not have enough gates for all flights!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever reasons, if you don't use the satellite terminal you may not have enough gates for all flights!

The main terminal seemed to only have a fairly limited amount of gates for the Wide bodies. The flip side, the side that is closest to land side, seems to be narrow bodies only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand network, introduce 2 more aircraft types and stop using satellite terminal at kul.

Stop using satellite terminal? are you kidding me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't get the logic of adding 2 more aircraft type that able to increase the profit though.

Neither do I - MAB is a small airline. Already they have problems finding crew for their fleet - I wonder who will be able to crew the new types, and at what cost. Training and training facilities don't come cheap these days! Increasing fleet types will increase fixed costs. So unless there is a plan, I don't see how MAB can make profit by introducing more aircraft types. I also doubt they have the finances to do that - looking at how the A380 has burdened the company, I really think they don't know what to do with limited funds available. MAB is still in intensive care and I don't know when it will come out!

Worst of all, the CEO looks clueless....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither do I - MAB is a small airline. Already they have problems finding crew for their fleet - I wonder who will be able to crew the new types, and at what cost. Training and training facilities don't come cheap these days! Increasing fleet types will increase fixed costs. So unless there is a plan, I don't see how MAB can make profit by introducing more aircraft types. I also doubt they have the finances to do that - looking at how the A380 has burdened the company, I really think they don't know what to do with limited funds available. MAB is still in intensive care and I don't know when it will come out!

Worst of all, the CEO looks clueless....

 

The cost of political appointment.... by the country's last leadership (if there is any).

 

I don't see how adding two types will bring them out of the red too. Best to find ways of utilising the A380s and save costs first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't get the logic of adding 2 more aircraft type that able to increase the profit though.

 

For airline to stay relevant, it is essential to have daily or multiple daily service on all its routes. On many regional and inter-continental daily service, A333/A359 is just too big for MH to be profitable. Hence, aircraft type between 738 and A333/A359 e.g A332, 788 is essential.

 

LH, KL, BA, etc over night many of their regional jet at destinations, so that first return flight to home base feed traffic to the network. Hence, sub-100 seats regional jet is needed. There are over 100 millions population within 2 hours flight time from KUL.

 

No matter what aircraft type, number of set of crews per aircraft remain the same e.g. 10 unit of A359 need 40 sets of crew vs 16 sets of crews for 4 unit of A359 and 24 sets for 6 unit of 787. Most ground engineers are multiple types rated. Cabin crews are could be rated on two aircraft type.

 

MAB is not a LCC, need to learn from BA, LH, KL/AF.

 

Stop using satellite terminal? are you kidding me?

 

Unlike AMS, FRA, etc, KUL/MH couldn't guarantee 45 minutes transit time because baggage transfer from satellite couldn't cope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aircraft type between 738 and A333/A359 e.g A332, 788 is essential.

Isn't that the reason why MAB ordered the B737 Max 10 fitted with lie flat business class seats?

 

The A332 is already in the fleet but MAB seems to be having issues trying to introduce this aircraft onto the routes.

Unlike AMS, FRA, etc, KUL/MH couldn't guarantee 45 minutes transit time because baggage transfer from satellite couldn't cope.

Isn't MAHB planning to upgrade the baggage handling system at KLIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"MAB is not a LCC, need to learn from BA, LH, KL/AF"

 

Unfortunately the likes of BA and AF are copying LCC...with no luggage, no meals, nothing included with the tickets. If MH do a BA or AF, don't think it will go down well with the flying public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why comparing with the EU airlines while MH is in the position to compete with regional airlines such as SQ, TH, CX, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For airline to stay relevant, it is essential to have daily or multiple daily service on all its routes.

 

I can think of plenty of relevant airlines that do not fly daily to each and every destination.

 

LH, KL, BA, etc over night many of their regional jet at destinations, so that first return flight to home base feed traffic to the network. Hence, sub-100 seats regional jet is needed. There are over 100 millions population within 2 hours flight time from KUL.

 

How many of those 100 millions actually have the need/ability to fly? You seem to be forgetting that ASEAN is not the EU.

 

No matter what aircraft type, number of set of crews per aircraft remain the same e.g. 10 unit of A359 need 40 sets of crew vs 16 sets of crews for 4 unit of A359 and 24 sets for 6 unit of 787. Most ground engineers are multiple types rated. Cabin crews are could be rated on two aircraft type.

 

You have lost me there.

 

MAB is not a LCC, need to learn from BA, LH, KL/AF.

 

Those airlines might have impressive fleets and networks but I can assure you, they are more LCCish than MH in many ways. The last thing I would want MH to do is to adopt BA-style practices, like selling Y seats (with LCC pitch) as J on narrowbodies, selling HBO fares, charging for seat selection even in J, high density seating on widebodies and I am only scratching the surface.

 

Unlike AMS, FRA, etc, KUL/MH couldn't guarantee 45 minutes transit time because baggage transfer from satellite couldn't cope.

Even our beloved Changi does not have a 45 minute MCT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why comparing with the EU airlines while MH is in the position to compete with regional airlines such as SQ, TH, CX, etc.

Yes, EU is quite a different piece of cake. EU also has a good road and rail transportation infrastructure - so the use of flights is a little different. In ASEAN, we have flights replacing roads and railways in many countries. Airlines like BA have a long history and were aviation pioneers - they have built a huge network and that is why they can still sustain the airline. But they are increasingly dependent upon the rest of the IAG airlines for profits. They also recognised that BA cannot expand further in traditional markets.

 

For MAB, Malaysia's low population and low GDP per capita does not support a big domestic operation. If MAB is supposed to be a full service airline, the target market is even smaller. Airasia recognised this a long time ago, hence their focus on building an ASEAN airline. Otherwise, there isn't sufficient feed to maintain an airline of decent size. MAB really needs to focus on its feed so that it can have a more viable medium-long haul business.

Even our beloved Changi does not have a 45 minute MCT.

This is only possible at small airports - it is not realistic for larger airports like KLIA and Changi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, EU is quite a different piece of cake. EU also has a good road and rail transportation infrastructure - so the use of flights is a little different. In ASEAN, we have flights replacing roads and railways in many countries. Airlines like BA have a long history and were aviation pioneers - they have built a huge network and that is why they can still sustain the airline. But they are increasingly dependent upon the rest of the IAG airlines for profits. They also recognised that BA cannot expand further in traditional markets.

 

For MAB, Malaysia's low population and low GDP per capita does not support a big domestic operation. If MAB is supposed to be a full service airline, the target market is even smaller. Airasia recognised this a long time ago, hence their focus on building an ASEAN airline. Otherwise, there isn't sufficient feed to maintain an airline of decent size. MAB really needs to focus on its feed so that it can have a more viable medium-long haul business.

This is only possible at small airports - it is not realistic for larger airports like KLIA and Changi.

Airline's market is as wide as its network. If home country population is a limitation, ME3 won't be their size today. Malaysia population is relatively low, for MH to be sizable, needs to consider Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, South Vietnam as its home population. Hence, regional jets.

 

In every profession (e.g. pilots, engineers, accountant, lawyer, doctor, etc), there is a need for training i.e. incurring cost. If high cost is the reason for not entering is like placing cart before horse, shouldn't be in the business at the first place.

 

Due to geography and road network, Asean population depend on air transport more than Europe.

 

I can think of plenty of relevant airlines that do not fly daily to each and every destination.

 

How many of those 100 millions actually have the need/ability to fly? You seem to be forgetting that ASEAN is not the EU.

 

You have lost me there.

 

Those airlines might have impressive fleets and networks but I can assure you, they are more LCCish than MH in many ways. The last thing I would want MH to do is to adopt BA-style practices, like selling Y seats (with LCC pitch) as J on narrowbodies, selling HBO fares, charging for seat selection even in J, high density seating on widebodies and I am only scratching the surface.

 

Even our beloved Changi does not have a 45 minute MCT.

Asean is not EU but Asean open skies agreement is sufficient. 5% of 100m is more than 10% of 30m. MH EY seat pitch is already like LCC.

 

I don't understand why comparing with the EU airlines while MH is in the position to compete with regional airlines such as SQ, TH, CX, etc.

CX is using KA to feeds its network. MH could compete with any airline, the question is whether is sustainable or not.

 

"MAB is not a LCC, need to learn from BA, LH, KL/AF"

 

Unfortunately the likes of BA and AF are copying LCC...with no luggage, no meals, nothing included with the tickets. If MH do a BA or AF, don't think it will go down well with the flying public.

BA/AF basic fare (without checked baggage) is pricing, is different from business model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder how much MAB have in their pocket to spend for the so call training given their financial situation now. We can have a lot of fantasy idea when we have the luxury of doing it, however, this is not the time for being fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder how much MAB have in their pocket to spend for the so call training given their financial situation now. We can have a lot of fantasy idea when we have the luxury of doing it, however, this is not the time for being fantasy.

 

For new recruit, whether is ATR, 738, A333, A359 or 788, it still need training and type rated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airline's market is as wide as its network. If home country population is a limitation, ME3 won't be their size today. Malaysia population is relatively low, for MH to be sizable, needs to consider Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, South Vietnam as its home population. Hence, regional jets.

Have you looked at our regional competitors? Philippine Airlines and Vietnam Airlines are using A321 as their regional jet already. There is certainly enough pax if you operate the right routes, there is no need to get small and not so efficient regional jets. And it would appear that MAB is learning from them - they ordered the B737-10 Max for their regional services that cannot fill the A330.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder if MAB were using B739ER to complement the A333 and B738, they might be in a better state. But at least they are waiting for the aircraft to be delivered, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...