Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sign in to follow this  
Azri M.

MAS being "the strength of an alliance without being in an alliance"

Recommended Posts

I guess we will definitely not gonna see MAS in any alliance with this attitude!

 

 

http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.js...999a00-e546f1c6

 

 

 

17-12-2007: MAS to fly to all major airportsby 2008

By Surin Murugiah

 

SUBANG: Malaysia Airlines (MAS) plans to fly to all the major airports in the world and increase its destinations from 500 to 800 by end-2008, its senior general manager for network and revenue management Bernard Francis said.

 

"Currently, we fly to about 75% of major airports around the world. With our hub and spoke network, we are confident of gaining access to almost all the major global airports by end-2008," he said.

 

Francis said MAS was also in talks to reach a code-share agreement with a Turkish airline that would further open its routes in Europe and Asia sometime next year.

 

He said the national carrier was concentrating on growing its services in China, south and north Asia, and the Asean region, and was also in talks with African and Middle Eastern airlines to expand its presence there.

 

"Our code-share agreement with China Southern Airline has given MAS a total of 128 destinations in China alone," he said in a recent interview with The Edge Financial Daily.

 

"Code sharing, and flying through a hub and spoke arrangement is how this business has evolved. Many airlines have been doing this partnership method effectively. Last year, we grew 7% of our services via code-sharing," he said.

 

Francis said MAS now has more than 20 airline partners and in 2006, it carried 15.47 million passengers, or an average load factor of 70%.

 

He said by code-sharing, airlines could exercise better asset management and have higher cost controls, which was key to profitability.

 

When asked if MAS was considering joining an alliance, Francis said if the company could realise the full potential of code-sharing networks, there would be no need for an alliance that entailed laborious processes and changes including replacing IT systems, facilities and even fare structures.

 

"We want to have the strength of an alliance without being in an alliance, and we believe it can be achieved through effective code-sharing partnerships," he said.

Premier airline group Star Alliance has 19 member carriers operating 17,000 daily flights to 897 destinations in 160 countries.

 

Francis said under its business turnaround plan, network management was to be carried out in three phases, first, making KLIA its main hub and second, review unprofitable routes with a view to discontinuing them.

 

"Phase three was the domestic route rationalisation as well realignment of services to certain other hubs. Removing networks that do not bring in revenue is a sound business practice, but is not easy to achieve as we have to consider our position as the carrier that brings visitors to Malaysia," he said.

 

"That is another reason we have to work in collaboration with code-sharing partners and enter special pro-rate agreements with other airlines."

 

Reflecting on MAS' 60 years in aviation, Francis said since its inception as Malayan Airways Ltd in 1937 (it started flying in 1947), the airline has placed national interest above everything else. It became a state-run stock corporation in 1957.

 

"Even now, if one looks at our network expansion plan, it is clear we want to serve Malaysians better domestically. We have low-cost community airline Firefly for Peninsular Malaysia (which also flies to Phuket and Koh Samui in Thailand) and MASWings that serves rural Sabah and Sarawak," he said.

 

Francis said MAS' domestic routes have been profitable for a full year since the rationalisation of routes.

 

He also said the restructuring of its domestic and international networks and routes were not to reduce the number of flights, but to improve connectivity and frequency on targeted routes.

 

When asked what was airline's biggest milestone, Francis said: "There are 240 airlines registered under the International Air Transport Association, and only five have five-star rating. MAS is one of them. I think that speaks volumes."

Edited by Azri M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its the other way round i guess......

 

no alliance wants mas to join. star got tg up north and sq down south. done! they don't need one in between. one-world can live without mh. code sharing (like mh and china southern) the best alternative then.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is just a follow up news because MH's Managing Director and CEO Datuk Seri IJ has made it public that MH will not be joining any alliance for at least the next 5 years.

 

BUT to say that MH can have 'the strength of an alliance without being in an alliance' is totally wrong for me. Unlike Emirates for instance, MH is not in the (commercial) capacity nor having the money to be in that position.

 

I always wonder, with only 2 weekly flights to IST, the main Turkish hub, can MH really benefit from the planned code share with Turkish Airline? Furthermore, the 2 weekly KUL-IST-KUL flights will be no longer non stop from 8 January 2008 as it will be tagged on to DXB. I don't think a 2 weekly service and not a non stop service is attractive to passengers. Plus TK flies to both SIN and BKK.

 

no alliance wants mas to join. star got tg up north and sq down south. done! they don't need one in between. one-world can live without mh.

The fact that Air France is blocking MH's entry into Skyteam is no secret and MH dismissed British Airways's invitation to become one of OneWorld founding member. But true, there is no way that MH will fit into Star Alliance because TG (founding member) and SQ are in the alliance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i wonder what does they mean in term of the volumes <_ ......i really have mix feeling regarding to this matter .>

 

well in my opinion , there are no need to twist those fact , the more u twist , the more the fact will twist u back . :unknw:

 

as a malaysian , of course i am proud of each aviation product of malaysia . but IMHO enough is enough .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is undeniable that MH is too late to join alliance; the next best option for MH is to have as many code shared as possible. Won’t be surprise that MH may ended up with the most code share routes in the world (another point for propaganda).

 

According to MH code share agreement http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/getdoc/c34.../codeshare.aspx, find the code share agreement is looped sided;

 

MH is offering code shared destinations beyond MH online station e.g. BMI LHR/EDI as MH9614, KLM AMS/OSL as MH 9281, while most partner airlines are offering seats on MH to KUL only.

 

To benefit MH most, partner airlines should offer MH routes beyond KUL e.g. LHR/KUL, KUL/SYD, KUL/MEL, KUL/DPS, etc as BMI.

 

Most code share agreement involve stock commitment i.e. seat blocking. Wonder how well MH manages these stocks.

 

Code share is different, not equal to and can never replace alliance.

 

:drinks:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what i was afraid of. as kk said, mh is too late. they should have taken ba's offer of being a founder member of OW. skyteam is not having mh. why should they? they already have ke and cz. forSEA routes - KLM and AF alreadyhave it covered between them.

 

MH's draw of flying to India and Australia/NZ is gone now. all airlines are flying straight into india. mh has cut back its australasian services unlike others who have expanded.

 

its too little, too late.

 

codeshares will help put MH's code on other flights and increase destinations. nothing to be proud of. for e.g. LHR-EDI flights by BD - other airlines that codeshare include LH, GF, CX etc etc etc.

 

it will not do anything to improve KUL's position as a hub. the airlines will consolidate their hubs in SIN and BKK (both are major OW, *A and even sky team hubs). KUL has nothing.

 

MH's management is talking out of their asses again. what a load of rubbish. pity that we are constantly fed this crap day in day out - they expect the people to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

just admit that no one wants them.

Edited by Izanee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is undeniable that MH is too late to join alliance; the next best option for MH is to have as many code shared as possible. Won’t be surprise that MH may ended up with the most code share routes in the world (another point for propaganda).

 

According to MH code share agreement http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/getdoc/c34.../codeshare.aspx, find the code share agreement is looped sided;

 

MH is offering code shared destinations beyond MH online station e.g. BMI LHR/EDI as MH9614, KLM AMS/OSL as MH 9281, while most partner airlines are offering seats on MH to KUL only.

 

To benefit MH most, partner airlines should offer MH routes beyond KUL e.g. LHR/KUL, KUL/SYD, KUL/MEL, KUL/DPS, etc as BMI.

 

Most code share agreement involve stock commitment i.e. seat blocking. Wonder how well MH manages these stocks.

 

Code share is different, not equal to and can never replace alliance.

 

:drinks:

 

MH only codeshares with partner airlines on certain sectors only. MH can sell KUL/AMS/OSL etc because the codehare agreement includes marketing the sector, why dont MH sell KUL/AMS/JFK.

 

I wonder why there is no people would have an idea of creating an new alliance again..eg with EK, EY, China Eastern, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, Aer Lingus, Virgin Group, Alaska Air, and more..maybe it would be just a dream

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Air France is blocking MH's entry into Skyteam is no secret and MH dismissed British Airways's invitation to become one of OneWorld founding member. But true, there is no way that MH will fit into Star Alliance because TG (founding member) and SQ are in the alliance.

 

BA and VS are archrivals, SQ is a major shareholder of VS, SQ was competing with BA to control QF, SQ part owned Ansett Australia (in competition with BA’s QF), SQ is seen as a major rival of BA. MH and KUL is well positioned to undermine SQ and SIN on behalf of BA, hence, BA was keen for MH to join OW. However, MH was not willing to be a team player. MH and KUL missed a great opportunity to be in an alliance and become a OW hub respectively.

 

:drinks:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BA and VS are archrivals, SQ is a major shareholder of VS, SQ was competing with BA to control QF, SQ part owned Ansett Australia (in competition with BA’s QF), SQ is seen as a major rival of BA. MH and KUL is well positioned to undermine SQ and SIN on behalf of BA, hence, BA was keen for MH to join OW. However, MH was not willing to be a team player. MH and KUL missed a great opportunity to be in an alliance and become a OW hub respectively.

 

:drinks:

wow... i might have miss this but that's a very big opportunity wasted...I wonder why MH snobbed the offer.... :huh: imagine one day OW getting as big as skteam or star alliance <_<

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow... i might have miss this but that's a very big opportunity wasted...I wonder why MH snobbed the offer.... :huh: imagine one day OW getting as big as skteam or star alliance <_>

 

OW has already said from the start that they do not aim to be big as the alliance would then become unwieldy and unmanageable. IIRC they want to cap membership of full members at 12. The whole point of OW is increasing profitability both collectively and of each individual member, operational efficiencies, and their strategy is to maintain exclusivity and prevent intra alliance schisms. This is why we have things like fully interline eticketing amongst OW members since 2005, whist 6 months to the commencement of mandatory eticketing *A is still struggling to issue their RTWs on etickets.

Edited by Keith T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OW has already said from the start that they do not aim to be big as the alliance would then become unwieldy and unmanageable. IIRC they want to cap membership of full members at 12. The whole point of OW is increasing profitability both collectively and of each individual member, operational efficiencies, and their strategy is to maintain exclusivity and prevent intra alliance schisms. This is why we have things like fully interline eticketing amongst OW members since 2005, whist 6 months to the commencement of mandatory eticketing *A is still struggling to issue their RTWs on etickets.
that doesnt sound bad idea at all....what cons that we face if joining the alliance.....we have nothing to lose right......yup, the main purpose of any alliance surely will be base on profit and business is business...+ helping customers to make their flight etinary more flexible...... anyway, I wonder who won the 1million fly points from holland, so lucky arr.... :D Edited by Mohd Yohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAS were stupid at the time. They were unreasonable and wanted QF to shift its entire SIN hub to KUL. When QF told them to piss off, they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MAS were stupid at the time. They were unreasonable and wanted QF to shift its entire SIN hub to KUL. When QF told them to piss off, they did.

 

Thats a bit desparate.... if I were QF I would have said the same thing.

 

I would have thought, the less the competitor in KUL, the better it is for MAS?

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to MH code share agreement http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/getdoc/c34.../codeshare.aspx, find the code share agreement is looped sided;

 

MH is offering code shared destinations beyond MH online station e.g. BMI LHR/EDI as MH9614, KLM AMS/OSL as MH 9281, while most partner airlines are offering seats on MH to KUL only.

 

That pdf is old (2005) and not correct anymore;

KLM, in the meantime, has added domestic Malaysian flights i.e. KCH, BKI and PEN to the list...I believe the # of destinations is more or less equal both ways, at least for KLM... :pardon:

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...