flee 5 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 On my recent flight on QR, judging from number of pax disembarked at Doha arrival terminal, it can be estimated that over 70% QR ex-KUL pax transit at DOH, mean there is a healthy demand ex-KUL to Europe or other destinations. Salary, construction and operation cost in DOH, DXB or AUH is higher than KUL but QR, EY and EK ticket price is cheaper than MH, and don’t hear QR, EY or EK complain about low yield, low demand or losing money ex-KUL. Until MH business model is revolutionized, whatever management is executing is a fiddle while Rome burns. I think MH's costs at KLIA may be substantial - e.g. rental of facilities, landing and parking charges, etc. The middle eastern carriers have one thing that MH doesn't have - scale. They operate lots more flights than MH. So they can amortise airport costs over more flights. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dean hizudy 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 hrmmm okok ...never mind la . pointless. and please dont call me mate ! request accepted! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kris Kim 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Let's just wait and see, I'm pretty sure we will at least see 2-3 more changes to A380 schedules before March 1! I have completely lost faith in MH and their management, however I still think their crew is still one of the best out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amanairways 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) I think the website peeps are not sure on which MH logo to choose from. There are after all at least 3 logo choices. This is strange. Why was The MH A380 left out ? MH and many things from here are always ( at least very frequently ) treated like some pariah .... Why ?? Could it be MH is like a big fish at home but out there it's like a small fry ....?!!? Or was the tail logo too ugly to put up ? Edited October 7, 2012 by amanairways Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Izanee 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 KK Lee, I agree...the middle eastern carriers seem to be able to fill their premium seats out of KUL ... while MAS can't. come on MAS, EK has been flying to KUL with their A380 since Jan...all of EK's and QR's flights to KUL (that I have been on) have been full. Shame about the airbus A380 delivery site - very bad that MAS is not on it! Not sure what these guys are up to but as someone pointed out earlier, it may be because there are too many MAS liveries to choose from!! lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radzi 2 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) hrmmm...whats a porsche CAYMAN ?? ... a new model - made in bangladesh ? and are you saying a 738 is like a porsche [ any model ] ??? maybe you meant a proton ?? Compared to the widebodies, the B737 is considered a sport car of the airliners. You have to fly one to know it. Sorry for being off-topic, but i don't take any insult on the B737 lightly. Edited October 7, 2012 by Radzi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
affendi osman 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Compared to the widebodies, the B737 is considered a sport car of the airliners. You have to fly one to know it. Sorry for being off-topic, but i don't take any insult on the B737 lightly. Hahaha Amaniairways is a new airlines captain! It does not know who is who at the moment! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Josh T 0 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 Load factors on KUL-LHR must be good. I'm heading off to LHR in a few days and, on my midweek flight, First class has 7 out of 8 seats filled and Business class has about 55 out of 66 seats filled! And this is not even close to being peak travel season!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted October 7, 2012 I think MH's costs at KLIA may be substantial - e.g. rental of facilities, landing and parking charges, etc. The middle eastern carriers have one thing that MH doesn't have - scale. They operate lots more flights than MH. So they can amortise airport costs over more flights. I would imagine KLIA's cost is much lower than Changi and Auckland. Air NZ is small and operating cost is high. Neither do they have a massive network and scale that of he size of MAS. One thing they do have is a good management team and a great CEO. It seems network scale isn't the main issue. It is the management...... And we have known this for a long time... Nothing of "Conspiracy theories", that a layman cannot observe. An airline that carries three colour schemes and can't seemed to agree on the logo.... Does it need more excuse or arse covering? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alberttky 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I noticed that MH does not schedule A380 for short regional flight for crew training / familiarization unlike SQ / TG? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amanairways 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Compared to the widebodies, the B737 is considered a sport car of the airliners. You have to fly one to know it. Sorry for being off-topic, but i don't take any insult on the B737 lightly. Errrr... Who is insulting the 737 ? Try to really understand my original post first before you comment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KK Lee 5 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 I think MH's costs at KLIA may be substantial - e.g. rental of facilities, landing and parking charges, etc. The middle eastern carriers have one thing that MH doesn't have - scale. They operate lots more flights than MH. So they can amortise airport costs over more flights. Apart from A380 hanger, MH facilities at KUL were built in 1998 and should be fully depreciated. Further, believe charges and operation cost at KUL should be cheaper than DXB, AUH and DOH. It seems MH always find reasons e.g. low yield, etc but never mentioned very high overhead, inefficiency, leakage, over staffed, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I noticed that MH does not schedule A380 for short regional flight for crew training / familiarization unlike SQ / TG? As we did't hear any hiccup during MH A380 introduction period, it seems MH faith in their training department have paid off Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 (They should have ordered 77W long time ago...) Now that the A380 is in MH's long haul fleet, and the A333 is giving MH good economics for its regional services, where would the B77W be deployed to? Berhaps the B787-9 or A350-900 will be needed to supplement the A380 on the thinner long haul routes. These aircraft can also be considered as replacements for the A333 on the regional routes too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 77W will fit nicely between A333 and A380. 77W coupled with A333 can operate some routes regional routes and also long haul. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 77W will fit nicely between A333 and A380. 77W coupled with A333 can operate some routes regional routes and also long haul. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I noticed that MH does not schedule A380 for short regional flight for crew training / familiarization unlike SQ / TG? I think that the flight crews have plenty of simulator time already. Cabin crew - this is where the overstaffed MH also has an advantage. The crews earmarked for the A380 service can be pulled from normal duties to undergo training. MH can easily replace them from the junior rank and file, I guess.... 77W will fit nicely between A333 and A380. 77W coupled with A333 can operate some routes regional routes and also long haul. Would be interesting if you could enlighten us on which of MH's routes are prime for the B77W. Since MH is currently focussing on making their remaining routes profitable - mainly through higher frequencies or deploying the A380 - I think that new aircraft orders won't be on their minds for at least another year or two. MH is not well known for good fleet management and only seem to order aircraft when their old fleet are severely underperforming! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waiping 12 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Well I thought the T7 are doing quite well so I don't see them replaced soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flee 5 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Well I thought the T7 are doing quite well so I don't see them replaced soon. 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. Of these only AMS might justify a B77W. I think that right now, MH might prefer to increase frequency to AMS rather than deploy a B77W. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johan Z 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Would be interesting if you could enlighten us on which of MH's routes are prime for the B77W. 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. Of these only AMS might justify a B77W. I think that right now, MH might prefer to increase frequency to AMS rather than deploy a B77W. Unfortunately, frequency doesn't always win. SQ replaced twice 77W daily with one A380 on ZRH, for example. I would imagine it's cheaper to operate one A380 than 2x77W especially 2x77W needs more cabin crew, layover cost etc. Unless demand is really high especially in premium, it's hard for MH to go more than once daily on Euro routes. My 2 cents... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 MH is not well known for good fleet management and only seem to order aircraft when their old fleet are severely underperforming! I guess you can only plan for future requirements (in this case, order planes to replace existing ones) when you are reasonably confident of what the airline hopes to do in say two to ten years ahead, not what you're doing today, not tomorrow nor the day after And with our beloved national carrier pirouetting like there is no tomorrow recently, can anyone be bothered to take a stab at that task anyway Are those people doing fleet planning even confident they will be around in two years' tme ?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isaac 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 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. Of these only AMS might justify a B77W. I think that right now, MH might prefer to increase frequency to AMS rather than deploy a B77W. MAS should refurbish their 772 now in order to stay competitive, to make the product offerings identical to the ones on their 388. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Well I thought the T7 are doing quite well so I don't see them replaced soon. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JingKai Seah 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 can someone enlighten me? why are malaysia airlines' B77Es called T7? unless i am mistaken from the conversation above? i googled but couldn't find anything related to T7? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kee Hooi Yen 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 T7 = Triple Seven Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JingKai Seah 0 Report post Posted October 8, 2012 Ahhhh.. I see.. just a custom acronym lol~ I thought it was some IATA / ICAO code or something o.o? but apparently not thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
