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

EWR axed, LHR reduced, LAX goes daily

Recommended Posts

The Edge reported that, quoting internal memos, during nothern winter season, MH will terminate services to EWR (silent on whether ARN gets the chop too), LHR reduced to 16x wk and enhanced daily services to CDG and LAX. CAI gets the chop too. (And amazingly, no mention of the other transatlantic service, contrary to popular belief)

 

I'm not sure about the reporter's accuracy as she mentioned CGK and BKK will soon get 14 weekly flights each on narrow bodies (from the present 7 weekly each on A330) - which is inaccurate, to say the least.

 

Perhaps some MH insider can shed some light on details.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EWR given the axe? I've been getting the impression that EWR pax load factor is like, what, 80%? :unknw: :pardon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EWR given the axe? I've been getting the impression that EWR pax load factor is like, what, 80%? :unknw: :pardon:

 

It is the yield that matters - not load factor. One can fill up the planes with discounted fares but if the total revs are less than costs, 100% loadfactor does not help.

 

Also, MH's EWR services have very bad timings and with just 3x per week, unlikely to attract the premium fares.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is MH doing on the LAX and CDG route??

I read somehwere that they weren't doing that well on the LAX route..??

Can anyone confirm where this is True..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAX goes daily make sense, I think one route for MH to USA is good, pax can just connect to other cities via SkyTeam etc. KUL-EWR pax can get on the KUL-LAX-EWR :drinks:

Edited by Seth K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAX goes daily make sense, I think one route for MH to USA is good, pax can just connect to other cities via SkyTeam etc. KUL-EWR pax can get on the KUL-LAX-EWR :drinks:

 

That would mean enduring over 5 hours of US domestic service though... :o

I've to advise a friend on rebooking her ticket since EWR is canned after Jan 15th. She's originally booked as MEL-KUL-EWR; MH's trying to get her to LAX, then connect to a domestic flight at their expense. But we're waiting for them to announce a codeshare on an alternative carrier to EWR/JFK, hopefully KE via ICN which is still pretty decent or, failing which, one of the European ST members (again, Pieter - I really mean no personal offence to you!! :D). I'm just speculating that it's ST carriers MH is going to codeshare on of course, after looking at the way they're re-structuring their routes.

 

How is MH doing on the LAX and CDG route??

I read somehwere that they weren't doing that well on the LAX route..??

Can anyone confirm where this is True..

 

The non-daily flights probably weren't too good for yields. Now that both CDG and LAX are daily, things should improve as far as attracting more premium fare-paying pax goes.

Edited by Keith T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the European ST members (again, Pieter - I really mean no personal offence to you!! :D).

 

Keith,

 

As long as it's KUL-CDG-EWR or KUL-AMS-EWR, I don't mind :lol: :lol: :drinks:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith,

 

As long as it's KUL-CDG-EWR or KUL-AMS-EWR, I don't mind :lol: :lol: :drinks:

 

There's FCO too but I don't hate her enough to do that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to see LHR getting a reduction.....must be a plot by AF to pressure MH to use CDG as their West EU base with the 2x more slots for MH to operate into CDG from the present 5x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the reporter's accuracy as she mentioned CGK and BKK will soon get 14 weekly flights each on narrow bodies (from the present 7 weekly each on A330) - which is inaccurate, to say the least.

For CGK, i just know that it can't match the capacity provided by SQ and GA between SIN and CGK due to the limited traffic between KUL/CGK. As for BKK, i think it's a false reporting as BKK is one of the few Southeast Asian cities that MH are making money, very unlikely that they will reduce the capacity to BKK. By the way, there are 6x daily flights between KUL/BKK now. 3x daily by TG (1x daily 333 and 2x daily 772) and 3x daily by MH (1x 734 and 2x daily 333)

 

 

How is MH doing on the LAX and CDG route??

I read somehwere that they weren't doing that well on the LAX route..??

Can anyone confirm where this is True..

MH is doing badly in LAX. Yield is terrible and plane hardly full. SQ is doing a lot better since they ultilize the 772 between TPE/LAX instead of the 744. So MAS should probably do the same and fly the extra 744 to SYD and MEL, make these 2 cities serve exclusively by 744 :)

Edited by Isaac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH is doing badly in LAX. Yield is terrible and plane hardly full. SQ is doing a lot better since they ultilize the 772 between TPE/LAX instead of the 744. So MAS should probably do the same and fly the extra 744 to SYD and MEL, make these 2 cities serve exclusively by 744 :)

No way they are doing bad in this route, remember my TR to KUL last month, my dad tried to book biz 2 weeks after the actual flying date, but all of them are fully booked, the only available is TPE-KUL on July 4th(not even in econ). First class is the only available for all the 2 weeks period but the company won't pay for F seats :pardon: The reason MH increase their LAX flight is beacause LAX-TPE because this is where most of the pax get off and continue to other cities.

Edited by Seth K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-daily flights probably weren't too good for yields. Now that both CDG and LAX are daily, things should improve as far as attracting more premium fare-paying pax goes.

 

 

MH is doing badly in LAX. Yield is terrible and plane hardly full. SQ is doing a lot better since they ultilize the 772 between TPE/LAX instead of the 744. So MAS should probably do the same and fly the extra 744 to SYD and MEL, make these 2 cities serve exclusively by 744 :)

 

So Hopefully MH will do well on the LAX Route..Now all they need is to code share with Any of the US airlines in US to other Cities in US and I bet u MH will do even Better on the KUL-TPE-LAX sector..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cant believe LHR is being reduced.. they should increase instead of reducing.. CX, EK, GF and many more airlines are fighting for every slot available.. wonderring if this is a wise move.. MH certainly doing very well.. especially on peak summer n winter period..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For CGK, i just know that it can't match the capacity provided by SQ and GA between SIN and CGK due to the limited traffic between KUL/CGK. As for BKK, i think it's a false reporting as BKK is one of the few Southeast Asian cities that MH are making money, very unlikely that they will reduce the capacity to BKK. By the way, there are 6x daily flights between KUL/BKK now. 3x daily by TG (1x daily 333 and 2x daily 772) and 3x daily by MH (1x 734 and 2x daily 333)

 

On top of that AK operates 5x daily between KUL and BKK as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way they are doing bad in this route, remember my TR to KUL last month, my dad tried to book biz 2 weeks after the actual flying date, but all of them are fully booked, the only available is TPE-KUL on July 4th(not even in econ). First class is the only available for all the 2 weeks period but the company won't pay for F seats :pardon: The reason MH increase their LAX flight is beacause LAX-TPE because this is where most of the pax get off and continue to other cities.

Not exactly, Seth. In fact, LAX is one of MAS lowest yielding city. MAS always offer the cheapest tickets in all classes among the carriers flying between TPE/LAX such as CI, BR and SQ. The last time i heard that the load isn't good ... well, i don't know. But i'm very sure that MAS is losing money with their LAX flight, and i don't think they ever make a profit with their LAX flight from TPE, not sure about their NRT/LAX flight though, which MAS suspended in favor of a daily flight out of TPE several years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good and bad news from today's NST news.

 

MALAYSIA Airlines (MAS) has reduced its net loss 36 per cent to RM176.5 million for the second quarter ended June 2006, on a 5 per cent increase in revenue to RM2.95 billion.

 

The loss registered in the second quarter was RM84 million or 32 per cent lower than an earlier estimation of RM261 million losses targeted in its business turnaround plan.

 

For the cumulative six months period, net loss increased to RM496.46 million against a net loss of RM164.35 million in the last corresponding period. This was achieved on a 2.5 per cent revenue growth to RM5.92 billion from RM5.77 billion previously.

 

MAS managing director Idris Jala remained optimistic that the airline will be able to meet its full year net loss projection of RM620 million, as stated in its turnaround plan.

 

"Traditionally, the second quarter is usually the worst performing period. We are optimistic that things will pick up in the remaining half of the year due to summer holidays and festive season.

 

"In addition, the measures we have adopted in improving yields and cutting down cost have also start to show results. We are excited about this. However, we must also continue to improve ourselves and not be complacent," he told reporters in Petaling Jaya yesterday.

 

Executive director Tengku Datuk Azmil Zahruddin Raja Abdul Aziz said MAS' second quarter yields increased 18 per cent year-on-year to 22.8 sen from 19.3 sen previously, despite a 4 per cent drop in its capacity.

 

He said fuel cost for the period under review was reduced by 14 per cent to RM1.09 billion from RM1.11 billion, despite a 21 per cent increase in average fuel price.

 

The airline hedged 76 per cent of its fuel needs this year at an average of US$58 (RM213) per barrel and more than 40 per cent of volume in 2007 at an average of US$63 (RM231) a barrel.

 

MAS reported a RM1.26 billion net loss for the financial year ended December 31.

 

Under the turnaround plan unveiled in February, the carrier aims to narrow its losses to RM620 million this year, followed by a RM50 million net profit in 2007 and RM500 million net profit in 2008.

 

Meanwhile, on the latest development of its international network restructuring, Idris said the airline has decided to keep flight services to Zurich, Rome, Paris and Los Angeles.

 

"After much thought, we have decided to keep these routes due to its potential. We are optimistic that we can make these routes profitable.

 

"In fact, we are also looking at increasing frequencies for services to Paris and Los Angeles," he said, adding that the airline is currently reviewing whether to keep services to Stockholm and New York.

 

 

The good thing is, LA and Paris will get (but not sure yet) more frequencies. :yahoo: :yahoo: I wonder whether they will keep the same aircraft types for those routes. <_<

 

The bad news : EWR and ARN maybe get axed...!! :o :o (I wish I could try this route before it dissapears from MH schedule..!!)

 

-mush-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, on the latest development of its international network restructuring, Idris said the airline has decided to keep flight services to Zurich, Rome, Paris and Los Angeles.

 

"After much thought, we have decided to keep these routes due to its potential. We are optimistic that we can make these routes profitable.

 

"In fact, we are also looking at increasing frequencies for services to Paris and Los Angeles," he said, adding that the airline is currently reviewing whether to keep services to Stockholm and New York.[/i]

The good thing is, LA and Paris will get (but not sure yet) more frequencies. :yahoo: :yahoo: I wonder whether they will keep the same aircraft types for those routes. <_>

 

The bad news : EWR and ARN maybe get axed...!! :o :o (I wish I could try this route before it dissapears from MH schedule..!!)

 

-mush-

MAS should keep both ARN and EWR, in my opinion. They just need to ultilize the right aircraft. May be like 3x weekly (772) KUL/ARN and daily flight to EWR, not via ARN but somewhere elses such as ZRH.

 

By the way, didn't MAS say they wanna reconfigure the 772 ?? Reduce GCC and add more EY ?

Edited by Isaac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed confirmed unofficially that ARN and EWR, CAI, CDU, are to be axed from Jan 2007. Try logging on their website or amadeus and you will see it for yourselves, UNLESS they are reconsidering the stopover for the EWR route which is very very unlikely.

 

On another note, I think PER spotters can expect both the Hibiscus and the Heliconia during the week of the new timetable. MAS seems to be increasing and decreasing capacity on the KUL-PER-KUL route and this time to a B744 aircraft 5x a week and 2x B772. I wonder where are the extra B772's are going to be deployed to now that ARN and EWR are going to be axed, what more with the decrease in LHR services as well ?

 

:help: :help: :help:

Edited by kandiah k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed confirmed unofficially that ARN and EWR, CAI, CDU, are to be axed from Jan 2007. Try logging on their website or amadeus and you will see it for yourselves, UNLESS they are reconsidering the stopover for the EWR route which is very very unlikely.

 

On another note, I think PER spotters can expect both the Hibiscus and the Heliconia during the week of the new timetable. MAS seems to be increasing and decreasing capacity on the KUL-PER-KUL route and this time to a B744 aircraft 5x a week and 2x B772. I wonder where are the extra B772's are going to be deployed to now that ARN and EWR are going to be axed, what more with the decrease in LHR services as well ?

 

:help: :help: :help:

 

To ADL perhaps ? But there's been rumours circulating around that ADL may be axed as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To ADL perhaps ? But there's been rumours circulating around that ADL may be axed as well.

 

Or maybe not. My reading of their media release detailing the interline agreement with DJ suggests that ADL is included as a port of transfer.

Edited by Keith T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe not. My reading of their media release detailing the interline agreement with DJ suggests that ADL is included as a port of transfer.

 

Yup, did notice that their agreement included ADL. Wonder which city can they interline with via ADL though because one would think that just MEL and SYD would suffice.

Edited by Sing Yew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, did notice that their agreement included ADL. Wonder which city can they interline with via ADL though because one would think that just MEL and SYD would suffice.

 

Probably spillover traffic from Tas, NSW and Canberra. Looking at how Qantaslink/QF operates, most NSW/QLD/Canberra traffic would be routed through SYD and BNE I suppose. MEL is traditionally the hub for Tassie, South Australia and Canberra. Broome is taken care of by PER although it's a bit of a detour in the present case since MH doesn't have international flights out of DRW unlike QF. So it does make little sense to include ADL in the agreement unless DJ is thinking of adding Central Australia to their route map out of ADL, or the tiny South Australian towns currently served by Qantaslink.

Edited by Keith T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad that they're planning to end services to EWR. If only MH is allowed to stop at LHR instead of ARH. Damn BA/AA

 

There is no BA/AA alliance on the LHR-NYC route though; it was not given the green light by various authorities. In fact the 2 airlines seem like competitors on that route even though they're both oneworld members - you can't earn AAdvantage miles if you're flying BA and vice versa for BAEC account holders. From memory, that's the path BA and AA would have to follow, or risk losing slots at LHR.

Edited by Keith T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But from what I read, both BA and AA vetoed MH's application for the LHR-EWR route. Besides, the London - New York route is a significant revenue maker for them. Makes sense for them to ally together and block a competitor from getting a piece of the pie, since if the allow MH that route, surely our price would be lower than theirs.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...