MAS A380 - Fleet to be Retained

[flee 5]

MAS should refurbish their 772 now in order to stay competitive, to make the product offerings identical to the ones on their 388.

Yes, this is the general consensus in MWings. Refurbishing is the lowest cost method of modernising the product. Perhaps, MH only needs around 10 for their remaining routes.

 

Looking at how the current management loves the A333/A380, I won't be surprised to see an order for the A350 in 2 or 3 years. That aircraft will replace all their current widebody fleet (except for the A380). It would seem that the current management prefers B738 for narrow bodies and Airbus for wide bodies.

[alberttky 0]

MH has some spare routes which cannot be covered by both the A380 and A333. The 77W can fill in that gap if MAS is looking to replace their 77E in the long run.

 

By the time MH decides to order / gets approval to order, it has to queue behind EK's (and other airlines') large order backlog at Boeing, it'll be rendered obsolete by then.

[Amirul Mazlan 0]

I think that the flight crews have plenty of simulator time already.

 

Simulator hardly replicate operational routes. What TG and SQ did was the crew to familiarize with operational requirements. Real traffic, real loads, real routes, real weather and real ground movement. Well this come from my limited experience. Modern sims i heard, can have RT for various situations. It's all up to operators i think. Maybe in MH all ground staff were all prepared with the handling and all.. maybe in TG they can afford to put the Bus on short routes to gauge their operational ability.

[S V Choong 4]

By the time MH decides to order / gets approval to order, it has to queue behind EK's (and other airlines') large order backlog at Boeing, it'll be rendered obsolete by then.

 

Haha yeah. They have already missed the boat with B787... unless someone backed out and they can purchase those slots, I suppose!

[flee 5]

Haha yeah. They have already missed the boat with B787... unless someone backed out and they can purchase those slots, I suppose!

Not really, any order now would probably be delivered in 5-6 years or so. That is perfect timing to begin the non-A380 wide body replacement programme.

[alberttky 0]

 

Not really, any order now would probably be delivered in 5-6 years or so. That is perfect timing to begin the non-A380 wide body replacement programme.

 

Yeah... If it happens "now".

[Isaac 0]

First 77E, 9M-MRA was delivered in 1997... she is already 15 years old. Youngest bird 9M-MRQ was delivered in 2006, IIRC. The age will creep up very soon if caught unguarded.

If the 772 are still gonna be around for 5 or 6 years, then it's still worth it to refurbish the planes now. Besides, the 772 is still a very fuel efficient workhorse, just that it is heavier than the 333.

 

Anyway, someone in A.net said that due to the larger usable cabin floor space on the 772, it can be fitted with more seats than the 333 in similar configuration (same seat pitch in both classes, and Y on the 772 still in 2-5-2 or 3-3-3 setup instead of 3-4-3). The actual operating cost would be similar to that of a 333.

 

SQ regional 2-class 772 (9V-SR* series) for instance, has 293 seats in Y and 30 seats in J. Their new 333 has 255 seats in Y and 30 seats in J. SQ regional 2-class 772 configuration can actually be altered to increase the seat pitch in J (no seat loss, instead, they gain another 5 seats by removing the big galley and lavatories behind J) and at the same time, losing just about 1 row of Y seats. Assume SQ use both the reconfigured regional 772 and new 333 to MEL, the actual operating cost of both these aircraft types is more or less the same. However, airline is unlikely to fill all the seats all the time. So the lighter 333 still somehow has an edge over the 772.

 

 

With LHR and CDG destined for A380 ops, there are only AMS, FRA and IST left on MH's network that will use the T7. On their North American side, LAX is also served by the T7.

And AKL too.

 

 

Haha yeah. They have already missed the boat with B787... unless someone backed out and they can purchase those slots, I suppose!

If someone cancels the order, other airlines that already have a firm order for that aircraft type will most likely get the earlier slot instead of a new airline that is placing order when the cancellation happens... unless the new airline pays a premium for the earlier slot.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Isaac

[S V Choong 4]

Yeah... If it happens "now".

When they have finally got their arses around to decide on an aircraft type, then they will probably change their mind several times, whether to cancel or go ahead, just like the A380.

 

Then again, it will probably get delayed by "cabinet" reshuffling and blaming of all sorts of things, such as fuel costs, low yield other than themselves and the internal factors. Then when red happens again, the govt will bail them out. Finally aircraft replacement program will get delayed again. This is just another vicious cycle that we should be extremely familiar with by now.

Edited October 8, 2012 by S V Choong

[Josh T 0]

MH still needs the B772 for the flights to AMS, FRA, LAX and AKL. The remaining ong-haul destinations like IST and SYD can be covered by the A33E. So, they only really need about 7 B772s to cover those 4 destinations. They may need a bit more if they want to make LAX and FRA daily.

The best course of action is to refurbish these B772s to the same standard as the A380.

[JuliusWong 0]

MH still needs the B772 for the flights to AMS, FRA, LAX and AKL. The remaining ong-haul destinations like IST and SYD can be covered by the A33E. So, they only really need about 7 B772s to cover those 4 destinations. They may need a bit more if they want to make LAX and FRA daily.

The best course of action is to refurbish these B772s to the same standard as the A380.

MH is the only airline who thinks B772ER is less fuel efficient now, much like AI blaming B777 family for loss. A33E to Europe and NZ is a bit pushing A33E's limit. B772ER would do the job perfectly. Since we will almost never see MH's livery on B773ER, I think a refurbishment is much cost effective than buying new planes.

[S V Choong 4]

MH is the only airline who thinks B772ER is less fuel efficient now, much like AI blaming B777 family for loss. A33E to Europe and NZ is a bit pushing A33E's limit. B772ER would do the job perfectly. Since we will almost never see MH's livery on B773ER, I think a refurbishment is much cost effective than buying new planes.

Do bear in mind that most of their 77Es are leased back aircraft. Not owned by MH.

 

Given the fact that we have yet to see the 77Es painted in new livery, I don't think they are thinking of refurbishing them. Not yet anyway.

[JuliusWong 0]

Do bear in mind that most of their 77Es are leased back aircraft. Not owned by MH.

 

Given the fact that we have yet to see the 77Es painted in new livery, I don't think they are thinking of refurbishing them. Not yet anyway.

Agree with you. MH can for sure work out a favourable financial terms in leasing the B772ER. MH needs to move fast in refubishing the B772ER, ME airlines are killing every airlines almost everyday.....

[flee 5]

MH is the only airline who thinks B772ER is less fuel efficient now, much like AI blaming B777 family for loss. A33E to Europe and NZ is a bit pushing A33E's limit. B772ER would do the job perfectly. Since we will almost never see MH's livery on B773ER, I think a refurbishment is much cost effective than buying new planes.

Well maybe it is less efficient on MH's network. I suspect MH is not carrying enough belly cargo - that may be why they are not getting good enough yields.

 

Many people also don't understand CX's aircraft choices. But they know best because they have the numbers.

[S V Choong 4]

Many people also don't understand CX's aircraft choices. But they know best because they have the numbers.

 

I must say I do not understand Thai's aircraft choice. Seems like they are going for every type in the market, except the 777-200LR. Smart strategy perhaps, but will be costly in terms maintenance and pilot and crew ratings.

[Isaac 0]

MH is the only airline who thinks B772ER is less fuel efficient now, much like AI blaming B777 family for loss.

Yeah. LOL

 

 

A33E to Europe and NZ is a bit pushing A33E's limit. B772ER would do the job perfectly.

Yes. The 333 still can't make it to Europe or even New Zealand nonstop year-round without severe load penalty. As a matter of fact, even the early built 343 such as those SIA operated can't make it between SIN and the western part of Europe nonstop year-round, not without taking a big load penalty. Not too sure about some of the last built 343 though. As quite a few of LX 343 were owned by SQ, people were wondering if the ex-SQ 343 can make it nonstop on the recently announced ZRH-SIN route.

 

 

Since we will almost never see MH's livery on B773ER, I think a refurbishment is much cost effective than buying new planes.

Agreed! It's very important to have a standardized inflight products, long-haul especially.

 

 

I must say I do not understand Thai's aircraft choice. Seems like they are going for every type in the market, except the 777-200LR. Smart strategy perhaps, but will be costly in terms maintenance and pilot and crew ratings.

That is why they had a few unprofitable quarters too. Otherwise, they can do a lot better. TG too, is a very corrupted entity. Despite so, this airline manages to deliver a more consistent financial results year after year. So I guess in a way, TG is still a better run airline compared to you-know-who And being an airline based at BKK definitely has its advantage too. But then, they do have to compete with a lot more airlines than you-know-who as there are far more airlines flying into BKK than you-know-where

 

While we're on this, TG is now in the process to refurbish their non-ER 772 for the second time. And those non-ER 772 are just as old as some of the first built MAS 772ER. TG said that the non-ER 772 will continue to fly for at least another 5 years. With no suitable replacement aircraft for MAS long and thin long-haul routes that is available for immediate delivery within the next few years, to order new seats for their 772ER may just be the way to go... for now.

[S V Choong 4]

Agree with you. MH can for sure work out a favourable financial terms in leasing the B772ER. MH needs to move fast in refubishing the B772ER, ME airlines are killing every airlines almost everyday.....

Only killing the airlines which depend their livelihood so much on the Kangaroo route - between Australiasia and Europe. The competition on this route is intense. It isn't only served by Middle Eastern carriers. It only makes sense for now because Europe and Australia will often involve a stop somewhere.

 

The ME carriers have limitations. They don't serve every route, for example inter-Asia routes and often not a direct route to the destination outside of their hub cities (DXB, AUH, DOH). This is where their weakest link lies. Not everyone is comfortable with a stopover.

 

Yes. The 333 still can't make it to Europe or even New Zealand nonstop year-round without severe load penalty. As a matter of fact, even the early built 343 such as those SIA operated can't make it between SIN and the western part of Europe nonstop year-round, not without taking a big load penalty. Not too sure about some of the last built 343 though. As quite a few of LX 343 were owned by SQ, people were wondering if the ex-SQ 343 can make it nonstop on the recently announced ZRH-SIN route.

 

With no suitable replacement aircraft for MAS long and thin long-haul routes that is available for immediate delivery within the next few years, to order new seats for their 772ER may just be the way to go... for now.

Didn't they want to retire the 77E and focus solely on 3 types, with the view of purchasing a newer and more capable 33E which Airbus is going to offer?

[Isaac 0]

Didn't they want to retire the 77E

That is the plan... or was the plan. I'm not sure. But with no suitable replacement aircraft that is available for immediate delivery for its thin and long-haul routes, this looks kind of unlikely to happen in the coming few years.

 

 

and focus solely on 3 types, with the view of purchasing a newer and more capable 33E which Airbus is going to offer?

Not even the proposed further enhanced 333 can make it nonstop between KUL and the western part of Europe year-round, not without severe load penalty anyway.

[flee 5]

Not even the proposed further enhanced 333 can make it nonstop between KUL and the western part of Europe year-round, not without severe load penalty anyway.

I think MH can live with that if the route is only 75% full most of the time. That is better than paying the penalty for flying a less efficient aircraft all year round. The bottom line will definitely look healthier over the whole financial year.

 

Unfortunately, because of MH's billion RM losses, bean counters will win the day...

[Isaac 0]

I think MH can live with that if the route is only 75% full most of the time. That is better than paying the penalty for flying a less efficient aircraft all year round. The bottom line will definitely look healthier over the whole financial year.

 

Unfortunately, because of MH's billion RM losses, bean counters will win the day...

I don't think this is going to work, not even temporary. This is mainly because on certain days, they are actually able to sell all the seats, while on certain days the flights are quite empty. If they can't sell all the seats even on high season, then it is very likely that the average load factor will further be brought down. It is possible to achieve 75% of average load factor, but to achieve 75% of daily load factor is hard as not even SQ or CX are able to do this. It is even more difficult with a plane that can't fly to Europe year-round with full payload. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the operation cost gap of the 772 and 333 can be very narrow depending on how the airline is fitting its plane. And to make the financial statement looks healthier is not enough. Too much taxpayers' money have been spent on this airline. They have to start making money.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Isaac

[flee 5]

Like I said, the bean counters will win. They have the numbers and they will perform the qualitative and quantitative analysis on those routes.

 

We shall see what happens...

[nrazmoor 0]

Read in one of the article on AF/KLM & Etihad tie ups that KLM will have a codeshare with EY on SYD and MEL. Is that one of the reason why MH axe 380 plan for those route...Not enough feed for the SYD & MEL?? Having said that will we see the end of KLM & MH agreement for the kangaroo route?

[S V Choong 4]

I don't think this is going to work, not even temporary. This is mainly because on certain days, they are actually able to sell all the seats, while on certain days the flights are quite empty. If they can't sell all the seats even on high season, then it is very likely that the average load factor will further be brought down. It is possible to achieve 75% of average load factor, but to achieve 75% of daily load factor is hard as not even SQ or CX are able to do this. It is even more difficult with a plane that can't fly to Europe year-round with full payload. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the operation cost gap of the 772 and 333 can be very narrow depending on how the airline is fitting its plane. And to make the financial statement looks healthier is not enough. Too much taxpayers' money have been spent on this airline. They have to start making money.

 

Two thumbs up! Can't imagine an airline CEO's decision will be dictated solely by the bean counters. Bean counters should be able to allow for growth in the future, rather than what it happens right now.

Edited October 9, 2012 by S V Choong

[KC Sim 2]

Read in one of the article on AF/KLM & Etihad tie ups that KLM will have a codeshare with EY on SYD and MEL. Is that one of the reason why MH axe 380 plan for those route...Not enough feed for the SYD & MEL?? Having said that will we see the end of KLM & MH agreement for the kangaroo route?

 

That is a very interesting development ... do you have a link to the article or somewhere that ties MAS' decision not to deploy the A380 to Sydney to this development?

 

KC Sim

[Waiping 12]

I was hoping to sample the A380 to NRT this December. Hopefully it stays according to plan.

 

Received the bad news today. Equipment changed from A380 to B772.

[flee 5]

Received the bad news today. Equipment changed from A380 to B772.

Sorry to hear that. You try to support MH but they screw u!