MAS On Path Towards Continued Profitable Operations

[Izanee 0]

Thanks keith - i thought as much. I don't understand why AF is being so obstructive when some of the other members of sky team (recently accepted) are not in the same league as MH.

[Keith T 2]

Thanks keith - i thought as much. I don't understand why AF is being so obstructive when some of the other members of sky team (recently accepted) are not in the same league as MH.

 

Perhaps AF thinks they won't gain as much with MH as a member?

Memberships of alliances are meant to be mutually beneficial agreements, except maybe Star who lets anyone in (or rather - anyone LH wants in).

Going back to the LX/BA example, what BA wanted to do was remove as much competitive threat from LX as possible and make LX's entry to suit BA's needs before LX was allowed to fully join the alliance. And LX has obviously told BA where to go, exited the agreement - the rest is history. Good for BA but bad for us pax - as the ZRH hub would be so advantageous for OW, being in the middle of Europe instead of at the edges (LON, HEL, MAD).

Edited September 24, 2007 by Keith T

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

I don't understand why AF is being so obstructive when some of the other members of sky team (recently accepted) are not in the same league as MH.

Perhaps AF thinks they won't gain as much with MH as a member?

Aha, MH and Skyteam! In A.Net, it wasn't a secret that the MAIN reason on why AF keeps on blocking MH's entry into Skyteam is to secure the sustainability its very profitable codeshare agreement with QF to Australia. By letting MH into the fray, these arrangements will have to be terminated as in alliance, where each carriers within it compliment and feed each other, it is MH who will serve AF's passengers to Australia and KUL is supposed to be the transit hub, not SIN.

 

I think it is safe to say that MH's entry into Skyteam can be said as at very initial stages. Just some mere discussions. It requires up to 4-5 years before one carrier can be appointed as a full voting member into an alliance. I think it took Aeroflot about 4 years to get into Skyteam. Another example is Air Europa, Copa Airlines and Kenya Airways which were invited to join on 9 June 2005 and only became a full Associate Member on 4 September 2007. China Southern Airlines signed the first agreement on 28 August 2004 and they are still not a member until now (to become a full member before the end of the year).

 

Re OneWorld, I think if we open back the 'history' textbook, we should know what a DISASTEROUS mistake MH had done in the past, during the initial stages of the formation of OneWorld. It is a regretful tale to say the least.

[Keith T 2]

Re OneWorld, I think if we open back the 'history' textbook, we should know what a DISASTEROUS mistake MH had done in the past, during the initial stages of the formation of OneWorld. It is a regretful tale to say the least.

 

You don't say!

If they're a OW member I'd be flying them A LOT more! (cheap JCL flights ex-Australia)

 

Ah thanks for that info/speculation about the AF/MH relationship. I don't read a.net but I'd suspected that it'd be something along those lines. BTW the AF-QF codeshare agmt has been expanded to include HKG as a hub. I'm just intrigued about how the rest of OW (CX and BA particularly) feel about the QF-AF agmt. And how will AF cope when MH does enter ST? Codeshare agmts with non alliance members are not uncommon but the deal with QF is significant enough to present a disadvantage to MH. So AF has to terminate the QF agmt and maybe place codes on MH's CDG-KUL and KUL-AU services? It's cheaper than starting a KUL service just for the feed, unless there's enough demand for AF metal to KUL.

 

Oops getting OT.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Keith T

[Imran K. 0]

could it be reroute to LHR, I know MH dropped several flights to LHR, and they won't hv trouble getting a gate there.

 

 

Doubt it...gotta look at the traffic agreements between both countries mate...or rather...between all 3 countries.

[Mohd Azizul Ramli 2]

Aha, MH and Skyteam! In A.Net, it wasn't a secret that the MAIN reason on why AF keeps on blocking MH's entry into Skyteam is to secure the sustainability its very profitable codeshare agreement with QF to Australia. By letting MH into the fray, these arrangements will have to be terminated as in alliance, where each carriers within it compliment and feed each other, it is MH who will serve AF's passengers to Australia and KUL is supposed to be the transit hub, not SIN.

I forgot to mention this fact, South East Asia and the whole continent of Oceania are the only region in the world where Skyteam (almost) doesn't have a present. Therefore, whoever managed to join the alliance and have a strong foothole in the mentioned regions (undeniably MH is the best candidate), will prosper most definitely! MH will be the only Skyteam member who will serve the lucrative kangaroo route. And that's why MH's entry was interfered, to protect the other Skyteam members (AF in particular) 'self' interest.

 

AF feeds its passengers to Australia through QF from 2 hubs, SIN (as mentioned) and BKK. Both AF and QF doesn't fly to KUL (obviously).

Edited September 24, 2007 by Mohd Azizul Ramli

[Keith T 2]

AF feeds its passengers to Australia through QF from 2 hubs, SIN (as mentioned) and BKK.

 

There's HKG now.

 

As for AF protecting its self-interest - happens in all alliances mate (at the risk of sounding like a broken record - the BA/LX example). New memberships are meant to be beneficial 3 ways - to the new member itself, to the alliance collectively, to each individual airline. All voting OW members, whether they're founding members or not, have power of veto with new membership applications - I'd be surprised if this isn't also the case for ST.

[KK Lee 5]

I forgot to mention this fact, South East Asia and the whole continent of Oceania are the only region in the world where Skyteam (almost) doesn't have a present. Therefore, whoever managed to join the alliance and have a strong foothole in the mentioned regions (undeniably MH is the best candidate), will prosper most definitely! MH will be the only Skyteam member who will serve the lucrative kangaroo route. And that's why MH's entry was interfered, to protect the other Skyteam members (AF in particular) 'self' interest.

 

AF feeds its passengers to Australia through QF from 2 hubs, SIN (as mentioned) and BKK. Both AF and QF doesn't fly to KUL (obviously).

 

 

If MH can offer similar cost as QF to AF, AF has nothing to lose to code share with MH.

 

Believe AF finds it unprofitable to operate to KUL, hence, don’t find synergy or benefit to code share with MH.

 

[Alex 0]

Hong Kong is the other hub, not Bangkok.

 

Alex.

[KK Lee 5]

I forgot to mention this fact, South East Asia and the whole continent of Oceania are the only region in the world where Skyteam (almost) doesn't have a present. Therefore, whoever managed to join the alliance and have a strong foothole in the mentioned regions (undeniably MH is the best candidate), will prosper most definitely! MH will be the only Skyteam member who will serve the lucrative kangaroo route. And that's why MH's entry was interfered, to protect the other Skyteam members (AF in particular) 'self' interest.

 

With growing Vietnamese economy, expanding Vietnam Airline fleet, a large Vietnamese speaking population in France, upgraded SGN and VN is more likely to yield to AF request, don’t discount AF will sponsor VN to join SkyTeam.

 

[Izanee 0]

I agree with KK lee - but don't forget AF also wanted to make TG defect from SA to join SkyTeam.

[Keith T 2]

Was just chatting to a friend who has family in ZRH and who regularly flies MH to ZRH cause they have the cheapest J fares out of MEL, and yet are quite decent to fly with - certainly much better than TG according to him. He's now pretty upset at the news that they've cut ZRH. I suppose he'd now have to wait for MH to offer interlined fares to ZRH from another EU port, cough up extra to fly SQ, suffer on TG, check out one of the middle eastern carriers, or do the special LX fares exMEL.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Keith T

[Seth K 3]

No need to suffer with TG, they hv best aircraft flying those routes..........

[Keith T 2]

No need to suffer with TG, they hv best aircraft flying those routes..........

 

Unfortunately for MEL-BKK they're still doing their infamous switcheroo with the regional config planes in place of the scheduled 772ERs. And that's a 8-9 hr flight... Until the 773s all get the new seating, we're unlikely to trust TG. I think they're a lot more consistent with ZRH? There are many complaints on FT from pax of other EU ports of their switcheroo.

 

Their service is also rather rough around the edges - not as sleek as SQ's, though they do try hard.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Keith T

[Pieter C. 5]

Believe AF finds it unprofitable to operate to KUL, hence, don’t find synergy or benefit to code share with MH.

 

KL0809 AMS-KUL also code-share with AF/MH

KL0809 AMS-CGK also code-share with AF/GA

 

So, AF channels are their MY/ID traffic on KL, in addition to their own CDG-SIN flights...(double choices)

 

Moreover, you can fly to SYD via SIN on AF/QF, as well as via AMS and KUL on KL/KL(=MH)