Not MAS' decision to drop routes

[Edwin P K 0]

[Seth K 3]

What do you expect when the gov. hold 80% of the company

[HSLim 0]

I certainly was under the impression that MH asked to be allowed to only serve these 19 trunk routes. So now it appears that the ministry of transport instituted new domestic air transport policies on its own counsel (or maybe there is another shrimp behind the stone?). If this is true, this whole domestic network overhaul (including the limits imposed on MH's domestic pricing freedom) smacks of sloppy policy-making if not outright bias.

 

I fear what this hints at is AK's rising political clout. While I believe that low cost air traffic holds the key to Malaysia's commercial aviation future and that the government should be appropriately supportive, I do not advocate favouring one carrier over the other. Making life too easy for AK will ultimately dull its discipline and fighting sensibilties.

[Ken K. Kour 0]

and the cut down of routes affects MH international aswell

 

think of the tourists that want to visit melaka, or any of our other sight seeing destinations....

 

it is so much easier for them to fly direct with MH, without having to get ou tat the MTB, then having to go to the LCCT, which is miles away...

[PC Yuen 0]

This wat happens when a non cook try to teach a cook how to cook.

 

[Attan 0]

Were the non-trunk routes profitable for MAS? If not, it's better that someone else with low operating cost take them over. With lower fares, the pax load will also increase. Even if they were profitable, how much did they contribute to MAS in proportion to total profit? If this is negligible, shouldn't MAS divert its resources where they can strengthen its international operations?

[Pieter C. 5]

If this is negligible, shouldn't MAS divert its resources where they can strengthen its international operations?

 

Exactly !!! like the MASKargo operations, especially between China and Europe/USA (via KUL)