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

Malaysia Airlines A330-223 9M-MTY- MH145D Flight Cancellation on New Year's Day, passengers ordeal

Recommended Posts

PETALING JAYA: A Malaysia Airlines flight bound for New Zealand came to “a juddering halt” on two consecutive days last week, unsettling passengers, who are demanding the national carrier apologise over the incident.

One passenger told the New Zealand Herald that flight MH145D was about to take off on New Year’s Day when the pilot allegedly stopped the plane, causing the passengers to lurch forward.

One passenger was so stressed, the New Zealand daily reported, that an ambulance was called.

Serjit Singh, of Red Beach in New Zealand, told the daily that as the plane skidded to a stop, another was coming in to land and he thought it was going to crash into them.

“The ordeal was harrowing,” he was quoted as saying.

The flight was subsequently aborted with passengers booked on another flight the next day, on the same plane.

But, despite an assurance from the new crew that the “plane is great”, it again came to a halt before it took off.

The passengers then confronted Malaysia Airlines staff, who said the issue was being fixed. They also refused to get on the same plane.

“We are not to be used as crash test dummies. This was the collective view of the entire flight,” Serjit was quoted by the Herald as saying.

An hour later, he said, Malaysia Airlines told them they would be taking off in a new plane. They landed in Auckland at 6.30am on Jan 3.

Serjit is furious about how Malaysia Airlines treated the passengers and said those who were not in business class were forced to spend hours at the gate.

He also claimed that no senior person from the carrier addressed the issue or was seen managing the issue during the entire ordeal.

He demanded an apology from the airline.

The New Zealand Herald has contacted Malaysia Airlines for a response but has yet to receive one.

Source: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/01/07/passengers-aboard-mh-flight-to-nz-tell-of-double-ordeal-before-takeoff/

9M-MTY.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, so lucky to be alive to complain!

But TBH, how many AVgeeks would be pleased to get 3 takeoffs (2 rejected) for the price of one? :diablo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonders whats worse. Most of the A332 on mab have poor IFE that are out of service. No chillers to preserve fruits. Different configuration and door options accross 6 of the a332. Tight 738 like seats deployed 10.5hour flight. Would prefer for a restricted payload A333 to be deployed instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAB did not have foresight. If they did, they would have ordered  A339s (like Garuda). They would be flying to AKL now and at lower operational costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 7:32 PM, flee said:

MAB did not have foresight. If they did, they would have ordered  A339s (like Garuda). They would be flying to AKL now and at lower operational costs.

I think u got it wrong overthere.. they had MOU to buy the 789 earlier which unfortunately already expired. They still have a lease option with ALC for 2 A339. 

Edited by nrazmoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nrazmoor said:

I think u got it wrong overthere.. they had MOU to buy the 789 earlier which unfortunately already expired. They still have a lease option with ALC for 2 A339. 

The MoU was just a politcal stunt for the former PM. If they had considered it carefully, the 78X would be a better fit for MH (as A333 replacements) as they don't need the range - they already have the A359 for long range. 

As for the options with ALC,  do you know when they expire? It does not look like they are in any hurry to take them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, flee said:

The MoU was just a politcal stunt for the former PM. If they had considered it carefully, the 78X would be a better fit for MH (as A333 replacements) as they don't need the range - they already have the A359 for long range. 

As for the options with ALC,  do you know when they expire? It does not look like they are in any hurry to take them up.

Believe the airline does not have cash flow and funds to even lease any planes at the moment. The airline is in need of loan for product renewal. The A332 were leased at very low bargain rates without any additional contract for cabin design adjustment hence the operational suitability issue now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flee said:

The MoU was just a politcal stunt for the former PM. If they had considered it carefully, the 78X would be a better fit for MH (as A333 replacements) as they don't need the range - they already have the A359 for long range. 

As for the options with ALC,  do you know when they expire? It does not look like they are in any hurry to take them up.

The 78X carries way more passengers in 2-class arrangement than the 789, so I honestly don't see how it could be a perfect replacement for the A333s.

Besides, the 789 were ordered for expansion as well as replacement. Yes they have A350s for long range, but they only have 6 to serve LHR. How are they going to schedule the 6 for expanded flights when they already use 4 of the 6 for daily LHR rotations?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jahur said:

Believe the airline does not have cash flow and funds to even lease any planes at the moment. The airline is in need of loan for product renewal. The A332 were leased at very low bargain rates without any additional contract for cabin design adjustment hence the operational suitability issue now.

Yes, they are very much cash strapped - hence they are only living a daily existence. Mid to long term strategy is thrown out of the window as they won't have funds to execute any.

Having said that, I feel that they have not managed to extract the maximum from their assets. They also did not fully use the opportunity given to them by Khazanah. So they are still not able to turn around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohd Suhaimi Fariz said:

The 78X carries way more passengers in 2-class arrangement than the 789, so I honestly don't see how it could be a perfect replacement for the A333s.

Besides, the 789 were ordered for expansion as well as replacement. Yes they have A350s for long range, but they only have 6 to serve LHR. How are they going to schedule the 6 for expanded flights when they already use 4 of the 6 for daily LHR rotations?

The 78X will give them improved CASK and will also allow them some room for expansion. They are certainly a viable replacement for A333s.

As for long haul, they clearly have not identified routes that will give high yields - that is why they are currently deploying the spare A359s to Japan (and sometimes to Australia). And that is also why they have not ordered more long haul aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, flee said:

The 78X will give them improved CASK and will also allow them some room for expansion. They are certainly a viable replacement for A333s

No point having improved CASK when your RASK is not improved.

The A380 has low CASK but yet MH can't make scheduled flights profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, flee said:

As for long haul, they clearly have not identified routes that will give high yields - that is why they are currently deploying the spare A359s to Japan (and sometimes to Australia). And that is also why they have not ordered more long haul aircraft.

Or maybe they have but they can't do it with only 2 additional 359s. E.g. MH identified AMS/CDG etc. as a high yielding route and it will require 2 359s to operate a daily flight - what happens if a 359 goes tech or goes in for regularly scheduled maintenance? Cancel flights for a few days/weeks? As it is, some KIX/NRT flights are operated by 333 when the 359 goes in for maintenance. 

And from what I hear, the Japanese routes have pretty strong premium demand (hence the 359 is used instead of the 333)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, flee said:

As for long haul, they clearly have not identified routes that will give high yields - that is why they are currently deploying the spare A359s to Japan (and sometimes to Australia). And that is also why they have not ordered more long haul aircraft.

They did order the 789(most probably for their long haul and expansion plan) but then you said its more of a political stunt...  I'm guessing the reasons why they are not proceed with 789 and 339 most probably because of not enough cash and the Gov still have no clue on what to do with MAB

Edited by nrazmoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejected takeoff's occur everyday, that is part of the practice to avoid being airborne and having to dump fuel and return to land... 

Bit of a media dive  🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAB high CASK was cast in stone when they ordered A333 instead of A350 or 787 a few years ago. On my recent trip SQ and TG 380 to FRA and KIX, ticket price was significantly cheaper than ME3 and MH/CX/VN respectively, and were full flight.

On MAB RASK, it is a matter of managing pax expectation. Believe MAB still lack business sense and lost touch with basic. On one occasion, a change of date on a 2 hours EY flight would cost higher than buying a J class ticket.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mohd Suhaimi Fariz said:

No point having improved CASK when your RASK is not improved.

The A380 has low CASK but yet MH can't make scheduled flights profitable.

Well this is where a good commercial director will make a big difference. MAB seems to have reigned in rampant wastage on the cost side but more still needs to be done. However, it still doesn't know how to optimise their revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Craig said:

Or maybe they have but they can't do it with only 2 additional 359s. E.g. MH identified AMS/CDG etc. as a high yielding route and it will require 2 359s to operate a daily flight - what happens if a 359 goes tech or goes in for regularly scheduled maintenance? Cancel flights for a few days/weeks? As it is, some KIX/NRT flights are operated by 333 when the 359 goes in for maintenance. 

And from what I hear, the Japanese routes have pretty strong premium demand (hence the 359 is used instead of the 333)

I agree that demand on their Japanese routes is pretty strong that even the A380 biz class is full.

MAB needs to look into their widebody fleet real soon as the A333 leases are expiring. They have to decide whether to ride on the A350 family or the B787 family of aircraft. The A350 looks to be a better bet so that they can reap economies of scale in MRO and other operational matters. If they choose the B787, they will probably return the six A350s when their leases end. If acquisition cost is important, the A330 Neo should also be considered as the transitioning from A333 to A339 will be relatively painless.

Bottom line is that Khazanah and the Malaysian govt. needs to end the uncertainty about MABs ownership future. Otherwise, it will be difficult to devise a new strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BC Tam said:

Malaysia Airlines admits snacks 'too light' during horror flight ordeal

from: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12299336

If anyone of us was on that flight and could be bothered to file a trip report ...... 😁

 

 

Gosh! This is horrible. I  flew to PVG with family last month but their connecting flight to KUL was delayed and causing them have to wait for 2nd flight which was 10 hours + apart. They were given stay and lunch buffet at Marriot Hotel which I thought it was reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had worse experience than this, 9M-MTZ once bound to Taipei as MH366, supposely to take off on 9:30am but delayed to 3 pm after 3 failed rejected takeoff attempt. Imagine of 5 hours inside aircraft because passengers cant disembark the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 12:10 AM, Mr.Bandit said:

Had worse experience than this, 9M-MTZ once bound to Taipei as MH366, supposely to take off on 9:30am but delayed to 3 pm after 3 failed rejected takeoff attempt. Imagine of 5 hours inside aircraft because passengers cant disembark the aircraft.

That's bad. Malaysia Airlines really need to look at A330 fleet replacement now. Their A332 are really badly maintained especially in premium cabin. Not having a chiller for long haul flight to NZ is a joke. Other than that, I have heard and seen photo of inoperable pulg points. How are we supposed to convince business personnel to fly MH when they can't even get a decent plug point. MH is a premium carrier and should not be racing to the bottom with AirAsia Group. 

Someone just placed an order for 40 A330neos, and leasing companies has around 260 A339neo on order, MH should be picking up their phone now tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...