A Thought To Ponder

[Isaac 0]

i dont mind paying Y-class USD918 to fly from new york to chicago return on AA and be served a can of pop. That's the way it is in America.

 

but i DO mind paying RM918 from KUL to KK return and get a stupid snack box filled with tasteless sandwiches with 0.5mm fillings, cheap apple (there are cheaper but better apples at Giant). Talking about Malaysian Hospitality. This is not it!

 

i have no complaint about sandwiches. i love it.

 

i have no complaint about apples. it 'whitens' my teeth.

 

but i do complain about sandwiches and apples served on board. they can do BETTER sandwiches or get PREMIUM apples at the same cost!! i think the sandwiches that i had eaten whenever i flew on fokker f27 from tgg-kul when i was a little boy tasted a lot better!!

 

if i were given a choice for a hot roti canai for RM5 or free snack box at 33000 feet, well u should know what would end up in my stomach.

 

5 star airline huh. you must be joking!!! i get duped big time!

Well said.

 

[Waiping 12]

So the problem might be the guy who bought those apples and sandwiches.

[Mushrif A 3]

So the problem might be the guy who bought those apples and sandwiches.

 

Don't be silly. of course not. MH will also want to lower the cost in preparing those snackboxes.

 

 

(not even gcc and first i think, no complains here so far...)

 

Well, to get the ball rolling...no more hot savouries in short haul C.

 

Just those same finger sandwic (sic) that came from the snackbox, but plated. (Perhaps, recycled from unused snackboxes? - now that's really low.......but I'm kidding.)

 

Also, poor or disorganised presentation. On the same tray setting, mixture of the old floral pattern chinaware with the new plain white chinaware.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mushrif A 3]

But seriously, I don't buy the whole 5-star service and low-cost thing. MH has been spitting it out lately that it wants to become a 5-star airlines with low costs. You can't have one WITH the other. It's like "I want to have a six-pack and still eat 10 big macs every freakin day".

 

It's always gonna be a trade-off and ESPECIALLY in Y class, the trade-off will be more evident.

 

The only way they can make it work is to establish that "Fly Malaysia Airlines and enjoy our 6-star service and equipments in golden club and first class......Fly economy and you'd be treated just like luggage. but at least its not gonna be that pricey!"

 

At least, then, Y class fliers would know exactly what they paid for and what theyre in for....

 

That's my beef with MH. The CEO goes around town declaring 5-star service when promoting Y class that has endured cut-backs on areas which matter to the customer. Either stay silent on the star rankings (actually Skytrax only gave a 3-star to MH short haul Y service, excluding cabin crew) or reinstate the traditional frills that customers associate with a 5-star brand or those which one expects from MH. I think customers may prefer hotmeals in a well-maintained vintage 734 than a brandnew A320.

 

I would like to think that the cutbacks are temporary but they seem to be immortalised in the BTPs. Even during hard times (Asian crisis or was it SARS, can't remember exactly), SQ did trim some frills in Y. SQ suffered a loss in just one financial quarter and the management treated it like it's the end of the world. Of course, SQ recovered its profitability in the next quarter and have remained so till now. And almost immediately, service has been reinstated to the expected high levels associated with the brand. The strong brand of SQ is very much associated with frills, and SQ fares generally command a premium in many markets and customers do pay as they know what they will get.

 

As you commented, 5-star and low-cost don't mix. If MH's CEO wants to turn MH into a KLM, fine, but don't mislead the poor customers at the back with the endless 5-star mantra. 5-star reminds customers to compare MH with the likes of CX and SQ (not AA, UA et al), and the traditional frills associated with MH. Of course, brand equity that was painstakingly built over the many years gets diluted in the process, but the CEO seems to be willing to accept this for profitability. But one wonders if there will be a sustained growth in profitability once AK X matures and competitors infiltrate the market. As brand equity erodes, there's nothing special associated with the MH brand, it is seen as one of many in the market, competing largely on price.

 

(Separately, I don't quite comprehend the need for MH to spend $$$, and the timing to spend this $$$, to open a regional lounge, given the leisure-focused, business interest strategy outlined in the BTPs. The existing lounge at the satellite building served it well all this while. Anybody know the real reason behind this?)

 

 

 

 

[Ryan Soh 3]

I don't know how in the hell i missed out in this thread for so many days...

 

I speak strictly from a business point of view and not as a passenger and my post was from a business a view...

You are obviously not in the branding/marketing field. This often-argued-about part of business is often not paid attention to and many business tend to think it is wasted money because it is intangible to see where the money is being spent on. It takes time to build a brand through intense marketing. From the time I started to get intrested in aviation, the campaigns that were released from MAS were more like a waste of time. Whenever there was an awesome campaign, there was no momentum to carry it forward, switching tag lines back and forth, here and there time and time again.

 

You might not know it but other than the mismanagement of the airline, the confused marketing direction of the airline really leaves all those in the know a little dazed as to what the heck is the airline trying to do? Are they trying out some new-age style of marketing not yet researched by the experts?

 

So... Conclusion, marketing and branding goes hand in hand with business. Once cannot do without the other. And by MH diluting the brand as they are presently doing, good luck in trying to garner corporate accounts who are really the ones who keep the airline afloat.

 

if you had bothered to read my post completely, you would see my clarification in the example down there. the part about sacrificing some services (and some passengers) for good RPK. hey, it worked so far, the numbers dont lie bro.

Numbers don't lie, that is true. Once again I have to stress the damage to the MAS brand. This damage is like cancer... It spreads slowly and by the time you discover the damage, it is too late.

 

The next thing you know, MAS will become nothing more than another Garuda. Or worse, KUL will become another Cengkareng where SQ becomes the largest international carrier out of that airport (just like CGK). There is nothing to stop SQ sales from poaching corporate flyers in KL and Penang. SIN isn't very far away from KUL.

 

Ah, where is Michael (THE ex-baker) ?!

A light year is a measure of distance, not time

(Sorry, had to get that out of my system )

Let's leave him alone, shall we? As much as I miss him, I think he has been lashed one time too many. He is actually quite a kesian character...

 

 

 

[Kenneth T 0]

Very well said Azman.

IJ, are you listening?

Inferior catering, reducing seat pitch on long haul will drive clients to other airlines.

Ditch this 5* value nonsense and behave like a proper quality airline once again.

 

Yes i agreed, the 5 star airline award is in the past.

[BC Tam 2]

Let's leave him alone, shall we? .....

But, but ...... he could have afforded us so valuable insights such as Datuk IJ's (oh, pardon me, ..... Idris' it should be for Michael the baker) personal views on the issue (not of the MH spin masters's mind you)

 

 

Edited May 11, 2008 by BC Tam