Azfar 0 Report post Posted July 4, 2005 Hi , Im Azfar,im 14 years old and this is my first post... I would to know why Malaysia Airline stop flying to Mexico City and Madrid? -swisstraveller Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fendy Report post Posted July 4, 2005 for MEX, the us government pulled MAS traffic rights to carry pax between LAX and MEX, therefore route unprofitable. tata. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mushrif A 3 Report post Posted July 4, 2005 As for Madrid - simply not profitable. Not enough good yielding traffic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Azahan 1 Report post Posted July 4, 2005 hello azfar, welcome and thanx for your introduction. apart from the answers you have got so far, the load factor was also the issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fendy Report post Posted July 4, 2005 hello azfar, welcome and thanx for your introduction. apart from the answers you have got so far, the load factor was also the issue. 781[/snapback] azahan, i thought the LAX-MEX sector was doing well... after all, they did deploy 744 on this route!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imran K. 0 Report post Posted July 4, 2005 azahan, i thought the LAX-MEX sector was doing well... after all, they did deploy 744 on this route!! 803[/snapback] I dont think they had a choice really... The loads on the KUL-TPE-LAX sectors must have been soo high..that it required the usage of a 744..hence a MH 744 would be in LAX for the flight...and would thus continue on to MEX. Kalau deploy 777...i'm sure they could still fill her up...but the 744 would have been a better choice. My 10 sen.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fendy Report post Posted July 4, 2005 imran, i am aware, what i meant was they were deploying 744 whereas american/mexican airlines were deploying smaller aircraft. because MAS could fit a crapload of bodies on that plane, it was damaging the american/mexican airlines which resulted in the us government (or mexican?) pulling the plug on MH traffic rights. without rights to carry pax LAX-MEX it was unprofitable and MH suspended ops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imran K. 0 Report post Posted July 4, 2005 imran, i am aware, what i meant was they were deploying 744 whereas american/mexican airlines were deploying smaller aircraft. because MAS could fit a crapload of bodies on that plane, it was damaging the american/mexican airlines which resulted in the us government (or mexican?) pulling the plug on MH traffic rights. without rights to carry pax LAX-MEX it was unprofitable and MH suspended ops. 813[/snapback] Thats true. If not entirely...its quite a plausible explanation. I dont see why though, the other American carriers couldnt deploy their own 747's on that route if MAS was trucking craploads of bodies. Makes you wonder...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keno Omar 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2005 My unscientific way of telling whether a European city would work is that, if a non-stop service could not be justified for that particular city, then it would not survive in the long run. This was exactly the case for MAD, BRU and ZAG. On the other hand, MUC was operated non-stop when MAS last flew there, so that's an exception to the rule. Anyone knows why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fendy Report post Posted July 5, 2005 Thats true. If not entirely...its quite a plausible explanation. I dont see why though, the other American carriers couldnt deploy their own 747's on that route if MAS was trucking craploads of bodies. Makes you wonder...... 821[/snapback] maybe because they dont operate any? seriously, i think because MH was hurting the american/mexican airlines, the rights were pulled. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Azfar 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2005 hello azfar, welcome and thanx for your introduction. apart from the answers you have got so far, the load factor was also the issue. 781[/snapback] thank you people...for all the answer i get...another question...did MAS ever fly to Athens and Vancouver? -Azfar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Y. J. Foo 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2005 thank you people...for all the answer i get...another question...did MAS ever fly to Athens and Vancouver? -Azfar 879[/snapback] They did fly to Vancouver, until '99 IIRC, via TPE, twice a week. They never flew to Athens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pieter C. 5 Report post Posted July 5, 2005 Keno, Wasn't MUC an add-on out of VIE ? (KUL-VIE-MUC) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keno Omar 0 Report post Posted July 6, 2005 Wasn't MUC an add-on out of VIE ? (KUL-VIE-MUC) 956[/snapback] It was operated via VIE at some point but i distinctly remembered it was operated nonstop towards the end of the service. Would have to double check with my old edition of Going Places later... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted July 6, 2005 A few months ago, there was a rumour about MAS wet-leasing A320s, but now the rumour or truth is that MAS will be leasing in 3x 737-800s (2 with winglets and one without). Is MAS still wet-leasing the A320s? Cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Azahan 1 Report post Posted July 6, 2005 hi sv, no. and the 738 coming sept/oct 05. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tharan G. 0 Report post Posted July 6, 2005 Are those 738's wet leased or dry leased. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mushrif A 3 Report post Posted July 12, 2005 Keno, Wasn't MUC an add-on out of VIE ? (KUL-VIE-MUC) 956[/snapback] No, it was a stop on the way to MAN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted July 12, 2005 Are those 738's wet leased or dry leased. May be damp leased (different from wet lease) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imran K. 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2005 May be damp leased (different from wet lease) 1691[/snapback] Theres such a thing ?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tharan G. 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2005 First time hearing it..damp lease.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fendy Report post Posted July 12, 2005 http://www.rafavia.com/FAQ.htm covers it. WET LEASE is basically ACMI as explained above. The period can go from one month to usually one to two years. Everything less than one month can be considered as ad-hoc charter. DAMP LEASE is similar as ACMI however usually without cabin crew. The LESSEE will provide the cabin crew. This can only be done if the cabin crew receives SEP (Safety and Emergency Procedures ) training by the LESSOR, in order to be acquainted with the differences of the airplane. DRY-LEASE is the lease of the basic aircraft without insurances, crew, maintenance etc. Usually dry lease is utilized by leasing companies and banks. A dry lease requires the LESSOR to put the aircraft on his own AOC and provide aircraft registration. A typical dry lease starts from two years onwards and bears certain conditions as far as depreciation, maintenance, insurances etc. are concerned. This depends on the geographical location, political circumstances etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eugene Koh 4 Report post Posted July 12, 2005 Do MAS has any intention to add Munich to its existing Frankfurt flight in future as I know MAS used to fly to Munich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TK 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2005 I've been hearing this MUC thing since last i went there in 1999 and did shuttle to MAN. Then KUL-VIE-MUC return... and so on. So far i spoke to the Area Manager of Germany last week when i got stuck there, NO intention of KUL-MUC-KUL or via somewhere europe station. I like MUC though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pieter C. 5 Report post Posted July 15, 2005 TK, you happen to like all kinds of cities you don't fly to anymore when is your next trip to FRA ? make a side-trip to AMS if you can, so we can spot and visit the LHS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
