Malaysia Airline union says no to A380

[S V Choong 4]

To be frank, it is very unlikely that i will fly with MAS if i'm going to US because of the limited frequencies.

 

For East Malaysian travellingn with MAS to the West Coast of USA is quite inconvenient, unless you want to stop do BKI-TPE and change over to the TPE-LAX flight. Otherwise CX, BR, CI (risk involved) will be a better choice.

[Seth K 3]

For East Malaysian travellingn with MAS to the West Coast of USA is quite inconvenient, unless you want to stop do BKI-TPE and change over to the TPE-LAX flight.

I think that's one of the reason they introduce BKI-TPE route. Sabahan can get connection to LAX from TPE. Plus, the gate is not that far away and the time it arrive is perfect

 

 

 

The US cities can definately work for MAS, connecting passengers will make the US cities profitable. 744 might be too big but 77W and 772 will suit perfectly. Most of the passengers originating from the States travelling on SQ flights have another flight to catch at SIN

Introduce daily flight to LAX is a start. I'm sure MH pretty well cover the west/east coast of US. They need to fly to the Central, because most travellers are originate from the Central. They can think of DEN, IAH , PHX, ORD etc. People of America tired flying to LAX/SFO just to go to Asia!!!

[S V Choong 4]

Introduce daily flight to LAX is a start. I'm sure MH pretty well cover the west/east coast of US. They need to fly to the Central, because most travellers are originate from the Central. They can think of DEN, IAH drinks.gif , PHX, ORD etc. People of America tired flying to LAX/SFO just to go to Asia!!! tongue.gif

 

Not for travellers to Japan though. JAL and ANA pretty much had major American cities covered. IIRC JAL also flies down to Brazil and South America from the USA.

Edited June 22, 2006 by S V Choong

[Seth K 3]

Not for travellers to Japan though. JAL and ANA pretty much had major American cities covered. IIRC JAL also flies down to Brazil and South America from the USA.

I mean Central USA

As circle below

 

 

Edited June 22, 2006 by Seth K

[S V Choong 4]

Seth, LOL, I know where central USA is alright

I am just merely saying that JAL also flies there! My 2 cents

[Seth K 3]

Seth, LOL, I know where central USA is alright

I am just merely saying that JAL also flies there! My 2 cents

OK

If MH fly there, it's a huge blow to other Asian carriers as pax no need to waste more time travelling farther to the west . Imagine how many people will travel thru there, along with good marketing such as first to fly luxurious A380, shortest time to Asia etc. But again, MH don't have that kind of equipment to complete the job How is it effective?(may be not a good example). Look how BA, LH, CO, AA, KL, UA etc. introduce flights from that point to Europe. Back then, they have to fly to major city first.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Seth K

[KK Lee 5]

Current MH schedule is not mean for business travelers but tourists, poor connection time and infrequent schedule.

 

MH should join an alliance, so that their flight can stop at the LAX and EWR. Onward connection can be on alliance network, else before we know it, MH is expected to serve every major US cities.

 

Keenly waiting for MH winter 06 schedule to see where they are heading to (either forward like a modern airline or still locked in a hopeless 1980’s model).

 

Not that MH don’t know there are Indian traffic to USA but they don’t deem them important.

 

 

[Seth K 3]

MH said they will go ahead and get the A380 as they planned Good for spotters

[S V Choong 4]

MH said they will go ahead and get the A380 as they planned Good for spotters

 

Good for them. Where did you hear this from Seth?

[Seth K 3]

Good for them. Where did you hear this from Seth?

KUALA LUMPUR, June 26 (Reuters) - Malaysia's loss-making national carrier, Malaysian Airline System Bhd , declined on Monday to rule out cancellation of its delayed order of six Airbus A380 superjumbos. Chairman Munir Majid said after the state-controlled carrier's annual meeting that it was still in talks with France-based Airbus about compensation and a new delivery timeframe, but he did not rule out cancellation as an option.

 

Edited June 27, 2006 by Seth K

[KK Lee 5]

 

After taking delivery of A380, MH should be looking at fleet rationalization. MH B772 and A333 seat capacity are almost similar. Very often, on high yield regional routes, MH is sending either a too small 734 or too big A333. MH is either not able to capture market shares or operating less than optimum yield.

 

MH should be looking at aircraft that fit in between 734 and 772. May be swapping all 333 to 332?

 

 

 

[S V Choong 4]

MH should be looking at aircraft that fit in between 734 and 772. May be swapping all 333 to 332?

 

Only if MAS can get them through a good deal. But MAS' A330-300 is the early version which is the problematic version. Airbus has since revised the A330 and the newest version are almost entirely of the RR and GE engines (Airbus A330-300X) Remember the "X" factor at the end of the designation.

 

The A330-200 is meant to be for longer haul, but MAS has been abusing them and under utilise them. SQ did not want the A330-200 and does not see them as A310 replacement either. So the best thing for MAS is still to stay with their A330-300 and wait for the 787s.

[Tze Shan 0]

if not mistaken what i've read frm newspaper, MH ain't make any decision on canceling or dealing about the 6 A380, they are still considering about this matter but MH union had shouted don't to buy!

 

correct me if im wrong, thx

Edited June 27, 2006 by Tze Shan

[Tony 1]

Yup, no firm decisions at the moment. MH is keeping its options opened.

[S V Choong 4]

Malaysia's loss-making national carrier, Malaysian Airline System Bhd

 

What a statement to describe MAS in short,

[Isaac 0]

Only if MAS can get them through a good deal. But MAS' A330-300 is the early version which is the problematic version. Airbus has since revised the A330 and the newest version are almost entirely of the RR and GE engines (Airbus A330-300X) Remember the "X" factor at the end of the designation.

NW also got the newest version of 333, powered by PW. They have 11 of it now with 17 more on firm order.

 

The A330-200 is meant to be for longer haul, but MAS has been abusing them and under utilise them. SQ did not want the A330-200 and does not see them as A310 replacement either. So the best thing for MAS is still to stay with their A330-300 and wait for the 787s.

Airbus tried to sell the 332 to SQ in the late 90s but SQ rejected it 'cause it's too 'heavy', SQ said. Then Airbus came up with the lightweight version of 332, unfortunately SQ never placed any order for that. I believe QF is the sole customer operating the lightweight version of 332.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Isaac

[Seth K 3]

So the best thing for MAS is still to stay with their A330-300 and wait for the 787s.

Wait for 787? perhaps to wait what other airlines say about 787? They gotto stick around with A330 may be untill the top guy fell in love with Dreamliner?

[HSLim 0]

My (layperson's) take on the MH A380 order:

 

I believe that the introduction of the A380 is inconsistent with MH's turnaround plan which calls for higher density aircraft of smaller size. First of all, it is unclear if the current traffic on MH's so-called flagship intercontinental services comes at the expense of yield. Second, this will add a whole new aircraft type. Furthermore, the management has already acknowledged that the airline's customer base is more budget than premium. Therefore, a two-class 747 with 400+ seats (rather than the current 12P41J306Y config) would already provide a significant increase in capacity; an A380 with comparable seating density would have at least 520 seats (!).

 

It has not been reported how much MH/PMB money has been sunk into service development and deposits for the aircraft. Is it really too late to walk away? Anyone with more details on the deal that PMB signed with Airbus on the A380?

[Sandeep G 1]

NW also got the newest version of 333, powered by PW. They have 11 of it now with 17 more on firm order.

Airbus tried to sell the 332 to SQ in the late 90s but SQ rejected it 'cause it's too 'heavy', SQ said. Then Airbus came up with the lightweight version of 332, unfortunately SQ never placed any order for that. I believe QF is the sole customer operating the lightweight version of 332.

 

 

QF is extremely dissapointed with their A332 fleet.. hence why they will be repainted in JetstarInternational livery soon, when that carrier makes its debut. However, they are using them on high-cycle short haul sectors which indeed is not what the A332 is designed for.

 

MH should be sending their A332 to places like Rome, Zurich and Frankfurt (given that these european destinations are those which are apparantly not performing well in terms of passenger load).

 

 

[KK Lee 5]

MH should be sending their A332 to places like Rome, Zurich and Frankfurt (given that these european destinations are those which are apparantly not performing well in terms of passenger load).

 

A332 is better served on regional routes which has higher yield.

 

MH management are too arrogant to send ill equipped A333 to Europe.

 

 

[Sandeep G 1]

A332 is better served on regional routes which has higher yield.

 

MH management are too arrogant to send ill equipped A333 to Europe.

 

I wouldn't so much as call it arrogance.. perhaps ignorance is a better way to describe this particular debacle.. hehehe but A332 is all on lease contract which I am pretty sure will not be renewed when the time comes again due to "rationalisation"...

 

[HSLim 0]

A332 is better served on regional routes which has higher yield.

 

MH management are too arrogant to send ill equipped A333 to Europe.

 

The A332 type (all of them leased) was for routes that are too thin to support the A333/B772. It was probably originally envisioned for launching medium haul regional destinations in MH's effort to jump on the "China" and "India" bandwagon, although it ended up serving Middle East as well.

 

I understand that the A333 only did the KUL-DXB-IST-MAD route briefly in the mid-1990s. Since then it has only been sent as far as IST. When the A333 flew into MAD, MH either had yet to receive or had just begun receiving the B772. As "ill equipped" as the A333 may seem to you now, the DC-10s are likely to have been worse.

[S V Choong 4]

I believe that the introduction of the A380 is inconsistent with MH's turnaround plan which calls for higher density aircraft of smaller size. First of all, it is unclear if the current traffic on MH's so-called flagship intercontinental services comes at the expense of yield. Second, this will add a whole new aircraft type. Furthermore, the management has already acknowledged that the airline's customer base is more budget than premium. Therefore, a two-class 747 with 400+ seats (rather than the current 12P41J306Y config) would already provide a significant increase in capacity; an A380 with comparable seating density would have at least 520 seats (!).

 

IIRC, JAL's all Y class 747-400D are equiped with 500+ seats!

 

Point taken,HS Lim, but MAS has been spending lots of dollars and cents on introducing the A380. An A380 hangar is being built at KLIA as well speak. If the A380 program is cancelled, MAS or the Malaysian people ultimately will be punished or fined by breaching contracts. As it has been discussed before, MAS does not need the A380 in a hurry, but it is already too late to cancel. Perhaps in longer terms the A380 will be useful.

 

MAS and SIA should be more careful about Airbus products now, especially the first batch, seems like it is always problematic. MAS and SIA had experienced the grief but yet they still buy newest products from Airbus, funny that.

 

Seth, I just read that the 787 program is running on schedule despite setbacks of the composite fuselage testing.

[Isaac 0]

The A332 type (all of them leased) was for routes that are too thin to support the A333/B772. It was probably originally envisioned for launching medium haul regional destinations in MH's effort to jump on the "China" and "India" bandwagon, although it ended up serving Middle East as well.

Yes, the 332 were meant to serve the thin medium-haul routes. The main problem with MAS 332 is the seat configuration. Way too many GCC seats !

 

 

but MAS has been spending lots of dollars and cents on introducing the A380. An A380 hangar is being built at KLIA as well speak. If the A380 program is cancelled, MAS or the Malaysian people ultimately will be punished or fined by breaching contracts. As it has been discussed before, MAS does not need the A380 in a hurry, but it is already too late to cancel. Perhaps in longer terms the A380 will be useful.

May be MAS should just defer the order. Remember that NW first placed order for the 343 in the late 80s, then there came the Gulf war and NW deffered the 343 orders. They converted their 343 orders to 330 and only received their 1st 333 in year 2003 (was it 2003 or 2004 ??). That's is more than 10 years later !

 

 

MAS and SIA should be more careful about Airbus products now, especially the first batch, seems like it is always problematic.

Agreed. The 343, then the 346, after that 345 ... what's next

 

 

MAS and SIA had experienced the grief but yet they still buy newest products from Airbus, funny that.

It's all about pride ... well, i totally understand that

 

 

[Sandeep G 1]

Agreed. The 343, then the 346, after that 345 ... what's next

 

hehehe no need to ask what is next meh... the A380 already having soo many probs! First 5 SQ A380s are apparently going to be a loss for Airbus.. But time will undoubtebly tell whether the A380 will live up to its dreams..

 

MH and the A380.. nice nice lah, but better off ordering B738s and B739ERs and later the B748 IMHO.