MH BNE flight changes

[Keith T 2]

Got this from FT:

 

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=623830

 

Malaysia Airlines will increase services to Brisbane to daily from mid-2007 (services currently stand at 6 weekly).

 

The airline will be axing non-stop KUL-BNE flights and will be operating Brisbane flights via Sydney - KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL. 747-400s will operate the daily flight.

 

I believe the 2nd daily SYD-KUL service, MH140 (777-200ER), will be the flight routed via Brisbane - leaves SYD late @ night. The stop in Brisbane may be something to consider if looking at booking with MH!

 

Good to finally see MH consolidating Australian services. I have heard that there may be changes to Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide services, but will be sure to post if I hear anymore.

 

Cheers

 

That particular poster is quite spot on with his info, but someone might want to verify this first though.

 

But anyway - I believe that's where MH is getting the additional frame to do the reinstated ARN/EWR service.

Edited November 12, 2006 by Keith T

[KK Lee 5]

 

On routes that MH that is serving twin cities like KUL/MLE/CMB and KUL/KHI/DXB, customers prefer alternate airlines (eg UL, EK) as shown by frequency.

 

If MH route BNE via SYD or vice versa will add at least an hour to SYD/KUL. Instead of reducing traveling time, MH is adding. In the long term, customers will desert MH (it takes longer and higher chance for delay), lower SYD yield (only budget traveler don’t mind the extra hours) and reducing load to Europe.

 

Guess MH is trying to reinventing the wheel, trying to be different, going against proven model. No wonder, MH is losing money will never be profitable in the long term.

 

P.s. Due to lowering fuel cost and surcharge remain unchanged, expect MH to report operating profit in 3Q/06 and 4Q/06.

 

 

[Sanjay Thaker 0]

 

If MH route BNE via SYD or vice versa will add at least an hour to SYD/KUL. Instead of reducing traveling time, MH is adding. In the long term, customers will desert MH (it takes longer and higher chance for delay), lower SYD yield (only budget traveler don’t mind the extra hours) and reducing load to Europe.

 

 

 

How does that work out KK? i dont quite get it. Why cant it be that the SYD-KUL pax would only board the plane when it arrives at SYD from BNE? Hence, no addition to SYD/KUL flight flying time. But i am still wondering how ur theory works? Mind to shed some on light on it pls?

[Keith T 2]

How does that work out KK? i dont quite get it. Why cant it be that the SYD-KUL pax would only board the plane when it arrives at SYD from BNE? Hence, no addition to SYD/KUL flight flying time. But i am still wondering how ur theory works? Mind to shed some on light on it pls?

 

The flight that will be linked to BNE will essentially be one stop for BNE pax on its outbound to SYD and BNE (KUL-SYD-BNE) and one stop for SYD pax on the return to KUL (SYD-BNE-KUL). So- KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL, not KUL-SYD-BNE-SYD-KUL. Not too bad I reckon, since TG still experiences very good loads on TG993/994 (BKK-SYD-MEL-BKK) as its a good way of combining traffic from both cities when there's not enough demand for independent services, although admittedly this will be delinked in December when MEL gets a 2nd direct flight with the 772ER.

 

In MH's case, there is still a SYD daily that terminates there so nothing much to worry about in regards to SYD pax. BNE pax however... maybe there isn't much demand from BNE in the first place?

Edited November 12, 2006 by Keith T

[Sandeep G 1]

probably makes sense in MAS' network revenue department... however.. I am failing to compute the decision to do so...

 

Are they finally realising that they are short of A/C???

[Sanjay Thaker 0]

Thanx Keith, but, why is it that they arent gonna operate KUL-SYD-BNE-SYD-KUL? i mean, in that case, SYD pax would not have to transit anywhere at all in comparison with KUL-SYD-BNE and SYD-BNE-KUL ? I can see that it an extra take off and landing which brings to higher cost but could it also be due to the australian authorities not allowing a SYD-BNE-SYD sector as it would be deemed internal?

[KK Lee 5]

 

May be MH should code share BNE/SYD sector with Virgin Blue.

 

[Kee Hooi Yen 0]

Actually MH140 arrival time in KUL is 0400 (summer) & 0500 (winter). So, to spend another two hour via BNE will make the arrival time in KUL just perfect. At least for me I like the arrangement (have the chance to visit another airport) !

[Sandeep G 1]

Actually MH140 arrival time in KUL is 0400 (summer) & 0500 (winter). So, to spend another two hour via BNE will make the arrival time in KUL just perfect. At least for me I like the arrangement (have the chance to visit another airport) !

 

yeah for aviation enthusiasts, it's a great thing!

 

What I would like to know is what time the new arrivial in KUL will be in the morning?? It would still definately meet the connecting traffic to LHR and LAX.. albeit by shortening the transit time in KUL.

 

Would be interesting to see the reasons behind this decision!

[Tony 1]

not allowing a SYD-BNE-SYD sector as it would be deemed internal?

I believe the SYD-BNE-SYD service would be an interlining service - but MH could work its way around by not picking up pure SYD/BNE pax. i.e. only fly pax already on the aircraft to BNE from SYD and vice versa. i.e.i.e. not allowing tix purchase for local SYD/BNE travel. This should be what UA is doing for its SYD/MEL route originating from the US.

[KK Lee 5]

Actually MH140 arrival time in KUL is 0400 (summer) & 0500 (winter). So, to spend another two hour via BNE will make the arrival time in KUL just perfect. At least for me I like the arrangement (have the chance to visit another airport) !

 

To visit a new airport for the first time is fun but won’t be for regular travellers. Further more, there is no guarantee that transit pax is allowed to disembark.

 

[Keith T 2]

Thanx Keith, but, why is it that they arent gonna operate KUL-SYD-BNE-SYD-KUL? i mean, in that case, SYD pax would not have to transit anywhere at all in comparison with KUL-SYD-BNE and SYD-BNE-KUL ? I can see that it an extra take off and landing which brings to higher cost but could it also be due to the australian authorities not allowing a SYD-BNE-SYD sector as it would be deemed internal?

 

No idea why - better economics maybe? Perhaps they don't want to kill off BNE yields completely by forcing a stop in SYD each way?

SYD will only be affected marginally as there's still a daily direct to/from SYD.

 

Cabotage (sp? i can never get that word right) won't be an issue as no airline has that right in Australia anyway. For eg, UA isn't allowed to sell its SYD-MEL-SYD connector unless you're connecting in SYD from the UA long haul (SFO pax need to change in SYD; the LAX flight goes on to MEL). Same deal with TG. You used to be able to use the UA and TG flights between MEL and SYD to connect to any Star Alliance flight (eg SIN SQ MEL UA SYD SQ SIN) but i'm not sure whether that happens anymore.

 

To visit a new airport for the first time is fun but won’t be for regular travellers. Further more, there is no guarantee that transit pax is allowed to disembark.

 

 

I think people are supposed to disembark. Gets a bit confusing because the same flight can have 2 different flight numbers (as in with the same airline code, not codeshare). They tend to board people continuing onwards to the other Australian city first.

Edited November 13, 2006 by Keith T

[KK Lee 5]

 

MH141 BNE bound pax need to de-board and go through security check at SYD. Likewise, MH140 KUL bound pax need to go through security check at BNE.

 

Pax is advised to buy duty free on arrival. It won’t be fun if one has his 18 yo duty free whisky confiscated.

 

Although this security check is airport requirement not MH. To avoid this hassle, believe many people will choose alternate airlines.

 

Neither cabin crews or ground crews understand the rationale to this route KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL.

 

 

[Keith T 2]

Neither cabin crews or ground crews understand the rationale to this route KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL.

 

I finally found out why a few weeks ago. It's another example of flying for prestige. BNE was doing very well for MH - but SYD was massively underperforming. So instead of boosting direct flights to BNE and reducing SYD, they are now using BNE pax to prop up SYD.

 

I fear that the opposite might happen - cannibalisation of both markets.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Keith T

[KK Lee 5]

I finally found out why a few weeks ago. It's another example of flying for prestige. BNE was doing very well for MH - but SYD was massively underperforming. So instead of boosting direct flights to BNE and reducing SYD, they are now using BNE pax to prop up SYD.

 

I fear that the opposite might happen - cannibalisation of both markets.

 

I concurred with you.

 

[S V Choong 4]

Wouldn't it be better to do KUL-BNE-SYD and SYD-BNE-KUL in the other direction in this regard?

[Keith T 2]

Wouldn't it be better to do KUL-BNE-SYD and SYD-BNE-KUL in the other direction in this regard?

 

Not when other airlines are offering direct services to both markets in both directions.

 

[Andrew K 0]

If i'm not mistaken, doesnt Sydney close after a certain hour at night? I kind of see the logic in it. Leave SYD before closing time, hop to BNE and land at KUL at a not-so-ungodly hour. The last time I took the flight, I landed at 0340 when KUL was practically dead. So an arrival at 6am would be better for me, even if i have to stop at BNE.

[KK Lee 5]

 

The reason why the old MH140 arrived KUL from SYD at 0340hrs was MH140 left SYD at about 2100 hours to avoid paying extra parking charges at SYD! MH140 could have left SYD at 1159hrs before airport curfew. There is no wonder, connecting pax are unhappy with this flight, very long wait at KUL. Hence, load and yield was poor.

 

[Walter Sim 1]

The night flight off MEL arrives at an awkward time as well, around 5 am.. I was waiting once for my transit flight back to Miri which was on 12pm via Kuching.

 

Had my worst experience ever waiting for the flight..

Edited May 20, 2007 by Walter Sim

[Keith T 2]

The night flight off MEL arrives at an awkward time as well, around 5 am..

 

Sounds like one of those flights targeted at Kangaroo route pax - I'm pretty sure there's an MH flight to LHR around 9am or so?

SQ218 out of MEL has a similar timing and is designed to connect to the morning SIN-LHR run. Looks like a crappy flight in itself, I mean - given a choice between day flights and proper arrival times vs redeye and 6am arrivals, but it's usually heavily booked and in Nov will be upgraded to the 77W! As a connecting flight it's perfect because you end up getting into LHR at a very civilised time - mid afternoon.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Keith T

[Seth K 3]

I thought early morning arrival is the best flight option, great time after long sleep, time to check in at hotel, meeting etc.

[Keith T 2]

I thought early morning arrival is the best flight option, great time after long sleep, time to check in at hotel, meeting etc.

 

Hotels might not check you in if you arrive too early.

[Sing Yew 1]

My flight on MH 128 on the 21st of April was packed even thought it was a red-eye flight out of Melbourne.

[Keith T 2]

My flight on MH 128 on the 21st of April was packed even thought it was a red-eye flight out of Melbourne.

 

Yep - late arvo and midnight are MEL at its busiest.

 

But if I'm just going to Asia on SQ I choose the mid morning departure [sQ238] - the airport is virtually empty! That flight is also the weakest out of the 3 dailies so better chance of having an empty row if you're in Y.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Keith T