Replacement For MAS 333

[Isaac 0]

Hi all,

 

If MAS were going to replace their 333, which aircraft you think they should replace it with ?

 

For me, i think they can replace it with a mix of 783 & 773 and reintroduce short/medium-haul F in the 773. MAS can use the 783 to those destinations where the 333 is a bit too big such as XMN, CAN, DAC and many more and make all flights to daily. As for the 773, MAS can use it to major cities with great demand of F such as DEL, BOM, MAA, PVG and perhaps BLR too. By providing F to India, it think MAS can successfully attract high yielding passengers for their US West Coast flights

 

So, what do you guys think ?

[Rozhan 0]

There is one other option to choose from i.e. the A350. If the economics of the A350 is better than the competitors, perhaps it will be shortlisted for the replacement program. This time it should have IFE!

[Jamie H 0]

I am no aviation expert, but I am under the impression that the 787 is a totally new aircraft whereas the A350 is apparently just an improved A330.....

With that, I think MH should go for the 787s....throw in a couple of trippies as well, we all love 'em dont we?

[TW Teo 0]

An improvement can be as good as an all new design... eg. the 737NG vs A320. Don't discount out the A350 yet, as its design has not been frozen.

Edited October 17, 2005 by TW Teo

[Jamie H 0]

An improvement can be as good as an all new design... eg. the 737NG vs A320. Don't discount out the A350 yet, as its design has not been frozen.

10786[/snapback]

 

I agree.......I just have a personal thing against the A330s......Dont quote me on this but Ive heard through the grapevine on how the powers that be in MH have long been unhappy with their 330s due to problems with dispatch reliability etc....

Nevertheless, we shall see what Airbus will do with the 350s

[Tony 1]

apparently the last time i read about the A350 design, it IS in fact just another A330 with a new name and new look. A350's size is between A340 and A330, and so is its range.

 

don't count me on this, but i have a feeling that A350 is just another product created to give the 787 competition just so that Airbus doesn't lose momentum when Boeing is heating up the 787 sales. *shrugs*

[Isaac 0]

Ive heard through the grapevine on how the powers that be in MH have long been unhappy with their 330s due to problems with dispatch reliability etc....

10790[/snapback]

Not really sure if MH is unhappy with their 333 but there is one thing i'm really sure is that many MAS cabin crews don't like the 333, they even have a joke about it, can't remember what it is. CX on the other hand, like it very much. Anyway, all the 333 MAS have are all original version ones, the performance of the enhanced version one (-300X) is far superior i heard.

 

 

[Isaac 0]

An improvement can be as good as an all new design... eg. the 737NG vs A320. Don't discount out the A350 yet, as its design has not been frozen.

10786[/snapback]

I know but Airbus got a really bad history in launching new aircraft, the 342, 332 (too heavy), 345 (not up to expectation), 346 (too heavy, problem solved, but still have many other problems), 343 (not up to expectation), 333 (not up to expectation, but the enhanced version is a lot better now).

 

My money is on Boeing 787

 

[Isaac 0]

isnt that the case with every aircraft??? every A model out there is crappy

10974[/snapback]

Not really. The 333 is an A model, the original version is indeed not so good (MAS ones are all original version). But the enhanced one is very good and can fly longer, more cargos too (that's why CX and NW like the A330-300X so much).

[Isaac 0]

isnt that the case with every aircraft??? every A model out there is crappy

10974[/snapback]

By the way, Brendan, the 773 is quite good too. SQ, CX, JL and NH all like it.

 

[H Azmal 0]

Talking about the A330s...I do wonder why the longer -300 series has smaller range than the -200 series.

[Isaac 0]

sure they do love the A model except they like the 773er better now dont they

11099[/snapback]

Yeah. EK will use it on both short and long-haul routes while CX will continue to use their 773 within Asia.

 

SQ on the other hand, use its 773 mainly within Asia, also 1x daily flight to MEL and 4x a week to Europe (IST). SQ 77W are likely fly to ZRH, SFO (via ICN), LAX (via NRT), SFO (via HKG). Very unlikely that SQ 388 will be replacing the 744 for the HKG/SFO sector as the Economy Class rarely full, far more economical to use the 77W.

 

Talking about the A330s...I do wonder why the longer -300 series has smaller range than the -200 series.

11099[/snapback]

Because Airbus simply shrink the -300 and named it -200. That's why the 332 got more range. The 332 is actually a newer model than the 333 too. There isn't much modification to the 332, it got the same wing as the 333. Airbus specially created a "light version" of 332 for SQ a few years ago but SQ never bought it. If i'm not mistaken, QF is the only airline has the "light version" of 332. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[TW Teo 0]

Isn't the proposed 'lite' version now the A350?

[Isaac 0]

Isn't the proposed 'lite' version now the A350?

11251[/snapback]

Not exactly Teo. When SQ was looking for a replacement for their 313 a few years back, Airbus offered SQ a "light version" of 332 to SQ as SQ had once rejected the original version of 332. SQ said the "original" 332 is too heavy (the wing especially).

 

[Sanjay Thaker 0]

MH's 333 always seem to have some problem or another.....the crew dislike the aircraft..and so do some of the pax....but if replacing them is gonna cost too much...a refurbishment would be good!

[Guest Fendy]

MH's 333 always seem to have some problem or another.....the crew dislike the aircraft..and so do some of the pax....but if replacing them is gonna cost too much...a refurbishment would be good!

11387[/snapback]

this happens with every airline... but what to do...

 

the airline buy the aircraft because it suits their needs. the crew work the aircraft because its their job. the pax ride the aircraft because it gets them from point A to point B.

[Sanjay Thaker 0]

the pax ride the aircraft because it gets them from point A to point B.

11559[/snapback]

 

there are fussy dudes...like MW.com members..lol!!

[Guest Fendy]

there are fussy dudes...like MW.com members..lol!!

11569[/snapback]

lol... well, you cant please everyone... unless, we brainwash them and make them all think the same way

[Ruiz Razy 1]

By design, the 332 and 333 are currently beautiful and sleek type of aircraft. Personnally, I really liked the 332, although I've not travelled on MH, but my experience on EK's 332 was really good.

 

What makes MH 333s less attractive is that they do not have PTVs, no new GCC seats.

 

But what makes me really sad at this particular type of MH aircraft is the title "MALAYSIA" and the flag on the (MH 332 and 333 ) livery , I think its a bit "too" forward and this has spoilt the general "composition scheme" and standard with other type of MH fleets. i.e. they are in between door 1 and 2; unlike 772, D10, AB3, M11 - which are / were in between door 2 and 3 of the aircraft, just before the wing not imediately after door 1.

 

Anyway, back to the topic ........ the 787 looks much more attractive (in design and comfort) than the A350 at this moment.

[Isaac 0]

Anyway, back to the topic ........ the 787 looks much more attractive (in design and comfort) than the A350 at this moment.

11791[/snapback]

Agreed.

 

[S V Choong 4]

Well I think they key point for MAS is......... they want to save money....... so, replacing A333 may not be in the cards coz it costs $$$ at the moment versus the life span of the aircraft. The 333 has around another 10 years of life.

 

Unless the 333 is a major gas guzzler, which I don't think they are, then MAS will not replace it unless it is absolutely necessary. Passengers won't walk away from MAS just because it is an 333. They are more concern about the service and the products they get inside the plane. Agreed with Isaac, that a refurbishment might be the sensible solution.

 

[Isaac 0]

Well I think they key point for MAS is......... they want to save money.......  so, replacing A333 may not be in the cards coz it costs $$$ at the moment versus the life span of the aircraft.  The 333 has around another 10 years of life. 

13340[/snapback]

Agreed ...

 

But what about their 332 ? I know the 332 are newer than their 333 but as i said in another thread, the seat configuration is so not suitable for MAS (42 GCC seats ???). Since MAS will be leasing it for another 3-year, wouldn't it be better to re-configure the plane to less GCC and more EY ? Beside, 332 is MAS only wide-bodied planes with SRTC

 

(SRTC : Standard Room Throughout Coach) Seat pitch : 31" - 32". MAS 332 only got 31" of pitch in EY

Edited November 6, 2005 by Isaac

[Y. J. Foo 0]

MAS will be leasing it for another 3-year, wouldn't it be better to re-configure the plane to less GCC and more EY ?

 

True, 42 GCC is a tad too many for MAS operations but don't think they'll refurb them. Refurb them means putting them out of service which is not so practical and economical. Remember, the lease period of 3 years is actually too short for all those refurbs, not to mention they may have to configure them back when they return them.

 

Just my 2 cents

[S V Choong 4]

The GCC seats on my ride (332 9M-MKT) from HKG - KUL is mostly unoccupied. I will say 75% was unoccupied. I have noticed that 9M-MKT's seats is now covered with MAS seat covers.

 

Agreed with Y J Foo, the lease period of the 332 prolly won't worth the trouble.

[Isaac 0]

The GCC seats on my ride (332 9M-MKT) from HKG - KUL is mostly unoccupied.  I will say 75% was unoccupied.  I have noticed that 9M-MKT's seats is now covered with MAS seat covers.

13379[/snapback]

It's worse for 332 flights to SIA, KMG, CGK etc.

 

Agreed with Y J Foo, the lease period of the 332 prolly won't worth the trouble.

13379[/snapback]

Actually MH should have reconfigured them when they received these planes in 2001/2002