Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sing Yew

Give us Sydney, not Pyongyang, says AirAsia X

Recommended Posts

I believe it's ads expenditure in Australia to bring more people to Malaysia. Anyone down-under can enlighten us on this claim?

 

Not sure how much they spent, but the most recent campaign is http://onlyinoz.australia.com/?ta_cid=redirect:onlyinoz

 

Having said that though, not much promotion other than a few news article about the launch of the initiative. Have not seen ads or anything like that to further push the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a strategic for Air Asia in order to survive in Malaysia without the backup from the Government, hence the outcry of his needs through the media, "Crying baby gets the milk".

 

On another hand, I believe D7 is (will) feeling the heat to deploy their aircrafts efficiently, especially with the arrival of new aircrafts they have ordered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it amazing that even MH's CEO seem to be of opinion that D7's business model being superior to that of MH's :p

That would be a fair assumption no ? Conceeding that MH will lose out to D7 on KUL/SYD even before a single competing flight has taken off :rolleyes:

Is it that no one at MH even think it's possible to outdo the competition anymore ?

Go on, rethink your product with paying pax as priority, come out with something so good and attractive your potential competitor(s) will think twice before taking you on again ! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it amazing that even MH's CEO seem to be of opinion that D7's business model being superior to that of MH's :p

 

Of course D7's business model is superior to MH. They offer cheap flights! And for the typical Malaysian, cheap is a BIG factor. They don't really care if the plane have IFE or the catering's from a 5-star hotel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it amazing that even MH's CEO seem to be of opinion that D7's business model being superior to that of MH's :p

That would be a fair assumption no ? Conceeding that MH will lose out to D7 on KUL/SYD even before a single competing flight has taken off :rolleyes:

It could be that most of MH's KUL-SYD pax are transit pax on the kangaroo route - so if D7 is allowed on the same route, it would also lose out on the KUL-LHR route. MH is just lazy, rather than work to improve its own product and be competitive, it is trying to take the easy way out since it is a GLC.

 

Go on, rethink your product with paying pax as priority, come out with something so good and attractive your potential competitor(s) will think twice before taking you on again ! :)

This is too much hard work! It is easier to ask the govt. to block D7!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry,but let's keep politics out of this topic.

I can't understand the outcry by AK/D7 regarding this issue.They said of making KLIA a hub but which KLIA will it be?the LCCT or the KLIA itself?

 

I'm sorry but govt spent lots of RM into the ready-made master plan of KLIA only to alter it due to the presence of a certain LCCT-which is built on demands from AK/D7,as if it's not enough for the govt to give in to their demands of refusing to use aerobridges in KLIA(and people call it white elephant,but if AK uses it will it be a white elephant),there's an outcry for routes.

On protecting MAS or not,I must draw a comparison where AK have franchises everywhere eg.FD/QZ and the upcoming Viet-Air Asia or whatever it is called.MAS on the other hand,don't have these franchises to draw extra profits from.So you tell me MAS don't deserve some kind of protecting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think AirAsia is prepared to build its own airport @Labu but the govt. also blocked that idea. The govt. has forced AirAsia to continue using KLIA/LCCT. Does it matter if KLIA or LCCT is the hub? They both belong to MAHB.

 

If you look at the Malaysian banking industry, it is a shining example (in Malaysia) of competition improving the industry as a whole. Bank Negara removed protection and opened up the market. As such, we now have so many different banks offering good service and we are leaders in Islamic banking.

 

MH has also improved itself as a result of competition from AK/D7. That is why we say that competition is good because it challenges businesses to do better. If MH is unable to compete in the business, then they might as well shut down. Taxpayers should not have to bail them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why they're contradicting themselves..

They wanted to built Labu but forced to stay at KLIA/LCCT but now campaigning of making KLIA a 'hub'.

Sure KLIA belongs to MAHB,but why don't they just use the MTB instead of pushing the govt to spend more money building the LCCT,using what you called 'taxpayer's money'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why they're contradicting themselves..

They wanted to built Labu but forced to stay at KLIA/LCCT but now campaigning of making KLIA a 'hub'.

Sure KLIA belongs to MAHB,but why don't they just use the MTB instead of pushing the govt to spend more money building the LCCT,using what you called 'taxpayer's money'?

Are they really?

 

Economics is what is driving AirAsia - they want lower costs for everything. If they used the MTB, it would cost more in airport charges. The LCCT has paid for itself over and over again already as passenger traffic is so much higher. Do you think the govt. and MAHB will authorise the construction of the permanent LCCT (PLCCT) if the current LCCT isn't making money for MAHB?

 

I am not sure if taxpayer's money is used for PLCCT construction. However, we do know that MH was bailed out with taxpayers' funds when TR turned MH upside down. That was why MH had to sell its building. All its aircraft were then sold to another govt. body, Penerbangan Malaysia so that the govt. has an excuse to bail them out.

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus coming back to the point in this route tussle between AK and MH.

AK's reason is fully economics,profits and profits.which is why they only want to fly big,fat routes.

MH reason for not wanting AK to fly/compete on these routes-they've spent millions(hopefully only a small part of which is taxpayer's money) and years to create awareness and brand of Malaysia,only for someone else to come and ruin the price market.

And,taxpayers money are used by MH(only if it's true) to provide social services.We all know domestic flights in Sabah and Sarawak sometimes fly on subsidies so that the citizens can get from point A to point B.

So don't blame MH if they want exclusivity on certain aspects of this business as they have to juggle between profit,social service and promoting Malaysia,being a flag carrier for half a century.Something's got to give if you're juggling with these things,and during these times,the profit has to come later.

Let me make things clear,I'm no anti-AK and I fly both MH and AK frequently,and I love seeing them tripping over themselves in order to compete for our(passenger) affection and trust.But I think this conspiracy theory of MH hiding behind govt skirts is quite absurd when they've provided me cheaper and better services time and time again since about 4 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are missing the point here a little bit. Is it MH or the government that is denying AK's requests? MH can say all they want but if the government say otherwise than there's nothing much MH can do. If the government for whatever reason wants to "protect" MH, do you honestly think they"ll refuse? I would say thank you very much myself. We all know the government works in mysterious ways ;).

 

Another thing, to say that AK has been victimized is also not accurate as history has shown that they have benefited from decisions made by our lawmakers. Just a thought, when AK ordered all those aircrafts did they honestly thought that they will get whatever they were going to ask for? Again knowing our government, that's a pretty reckless assumption unless they had hedged their bets and it is not really paying like they thought it would be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus coming back to the point in this route tussle between AK and MH.

AK's reason is fully economics,profits and profits.which is why they only want to fly big,fat routes.

MH reason for not wanting AK to fly/compete on these routes-they've spent millions(hopefully only a small part of which is taxpayer's money) and years to create awareness and brand of Malaysia,only for someone else to come and ruin the price market.

And,taxpayers money are used by MH(only if it's true) to provide social services.We all know domestic flights in Sabah and Sarawak sometimes fly on subsidies so that the citizens can get from point A to point B.

So don't blame MH if they want exclusivity on certain aspects of this business as they have to juggle between profit,social service and promoting Malaysia,being a flag carrier for half a century.Something's got to give if you're juggling with these things,and during these times,the profit has to come later.

Let me make things clear,I'm no anti-AK and I fly both MH and AK frequently,and I love seeing them tripping over themselves in order to compete for our(passenger) affection and trust.But I think this conspiracy theory of MH hiding behind govt skirts is quite absurd when they've provided me cheaper and better services time and time again since about 4 years ago.

It is good that we are able to debate constructively and look at the pros and cons objectively. I am not anti-MH either - I am more pro Malaysia, want our airlines to do well and not only compete with each other but also with the best in the world. To do that, we need markets to be open and free so that anyone and everyone can have a go at any route they like to fly. The govt. should be a facilitator, not a manipulator.

 

D7 is a new airline and currently its current priority is to build a network of core routes - a bit like having anchor tenants in a shopping malls. Once this is done, they can think of less profitable (but nevertheless makes business sense) routes. How can you invest if you do not have base level income and profits? Banks would not be so stupid to lend you money if you are not fundamentally profitable. MH has over 40 years of route investment behind them (if we ignore the pre-1972 days of MSA and its predecessors) - so they have already built up their core routes.

 

In Singapore, a much smaller country, they have 4 scheduled airlines that can be considered to be Singaporean. Yet their govt does not protect one airline from the other from competition. All of them also have to compete on the open market with other airlines serving SIN. This is what Malaysia should do too. The govt. should not restrict any airline from flying any route. If Firely or MASWings want to fly to wherever AK or MH flies and sees a business sense to do it, they should be able to do so. Blocking them would be a foolish thing to do...

 

MH is better organised today, RAS and govt. subsidised services are operated by a subsidiary (MASWings) so that their accounting is more transparent. RAS services have also improved a lot because of that.

 

If there was no competition, do you think you would be enjoying better services at cheaper fares from MH. So let Malaysian skies be open - so that people like you and me have a greater choice of airlines and fares to suit our individual needs.

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malaysia has already paid its price. KUL has missed the opportunity to develop as a regional hub in the 70s & early 80s thanks to the protection to its home carrier. Foreign carriers opted for BKK & SIN due to their open sky policy. As more and more carriers fly into BKK & SIN with more and more frequencies, KUL keep losing its shine. At the same time, SQ in particular, also grew bigger & stronger with its SIN base. When our government ‘realised’ it was already too late (IIRC, Malaysia only had its open policy in the 90s). KUL can hardly compete with BKK & SIN now in becoming a regional hub, so does MH.

 

Now with AK & D7, I believe there is another opportunity for KUL to become a regional hub for LCC (mainly for leisure travellers). However, I afraid the same thing will happen again and that will definitely retard the growing of D7, KUL & even MH !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government for whatever reason wants to "protect" MH, do you honestly think they"ll refuse? I would say thank you very much myself. We all know the government works in mysterious ways ;).

Yes, they do indeed - and this extended delay in granting the rights for D7 to ply the KUL-SYD route is one of them! D7 was also "persuaded" to send their first leased A343(9M-XAB) to SZB for its livery to be painted when they originally intended to send it to SIN because it was cheaper to do it there. So D7 had to do "national service" sending their plane to a competitor for painting and paying more for the privilege. Fortunately for D7 the second A343 (Raiders livery) was done in SIN.

Edited by flee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may add, any action to delay or block AK and D7's growth will only benefit neighboring countries' LCCs particularly those who are based in Singapore, namely Jetstar Asia and Tiger Airways, which no doubt are so much envious over AK/D7. AK/D7, a Malaysian by nationality, now has a huge lead over them all. Would we want to see them fail like we have seen how MH succumbed to SQ when MSA split up? Why would we want history to repeat itself again?

 

People, let me emphasize again, we have a chance with a very promising airline which is potentially becoming the Ryanair or Southwest Airline of Asia. That is a huge stake. The economic benefit that this can bring into the Malaysian economy is far larger than to protect one fledging '5 star' flag carrier over their KUL-SYD route. Is MH that desperate that if D7 ventures into KUL-SYD vv, they will become bankrupt instantly?

 

On protecting MAS or not,I must draw a comparison where AK have franchises everywhere eg.FD/QZ and the upcoming Viet-Air Asia or whatever it is called.MAS on the other hand,don't have these franchises to draw extra profits from.So you tell me MAS don't deserve some kind of protecting?

 

So don't blame MH if they want exclusivity on certain aspects of this business as they have to juggle between profit,social service and promoting Malaysia,being a flag carrier for half a century.Something's got to give if you're juggling with these things,and during these times,the profit has to come later.

MH does have a franchise - FY and (to a certain extent, MASwings). And they can always have franchises if they are creative enough to grab opportunities like AK/D7. Do you think MH will came out with FY if AK is non existence? SQ has proven that they can invest in local and foreign airlines like the 49% shares they have in VS and also the recent intent to acquire 10% of LAN Chile, both of which are competing airlines, on top of their investment inside MI and TR at their home turf. Not to forget the tussle SQ involved in order to get MU, which the carrier failed in the end. So MH does have many avenues to generate more income for the company, SQ proved it over and over and over and over again. Alas, we all know that MH is not a business savvy airline.

 

And I am not pro AK/D7 either. If you click on my FlightMemory banner, which accompanies all my 1,824 posts (and counting) throughout the entire forum, you would have known that MH is my primary carrier, accounting for 57% of my entire flights throughout my entire lifetime.

Edited by Mohd Azizul Ramli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may add, any action to delay or block AK and D7's growth will only benefit neighboring countries' LCCs particularly those who are based in Singapore, namely Jetstar Asia and Tiger Airways, which no doubt are so much envious over AK/D7. AK/D7, a Malaysian by nationality, now has a huge lead over them all. Would we want to see them fail like we have seen how MH succumbed to SQ when MSA split up? Why would we want history to repeat itself again?

 

People, let me emphasize again, we have a chance with a very promising airline which is potentially becoming the Ryanair or Southwest Airline of Asia. That is a huge stake. The economic benefit that this can bring into the Malaysian economy is far larger than to protect one fledging '5 star' flag carrier over their KUL-SYD route. Is MH that desperate that if D7 ventures into KUL-SYD vv, they will become bankrupt instantly?

 

 

 

 

MH does have a franchise - FY and (to a certain extent, MASwings). And they can always have franchises if they are creative enough to grab opportunities like AK/D7. Do you think MH will came out with FY if AK is non existence? SQ has proven that they can invest in local and foreign airlines like the 49% shares they have in VS and also the recent intent to acquire 10% of LAN Chile, both of which are competing airlines, on top of their investment inside MI and TR at their home turf. Not to forget the tussle SQ involved in order to get MU, which the carrier failed in the end. So MH does have many avenues to generate more income for the company, SQ proved it over and over and over and over again. Alas, we all know that MH is not a business savvy airline.

 

And I am not pro AK/D7 either. If you click on my FlightMemory banner, which accompanies all my 1,824 posts (and counting) throughout the entire forum, you would have known that MH is my primary carrier, accounting for 57% of my entire flights throughout my entire lifetime.

 

 

 

Well said !!

 

Unfortunately, MH seems to be protected at the expense of the country's aviation and tourism growth. I must say that MH has my full support but the recent crashing of the quality of services offered and the way the airline is run (in particular the intereference by certain quarters)seems like the little hope there was is heading downhill...definitely.

 

I guess if certain quarters are able to interfere in the MH affairs, be it supporting their request to block other airlines from competing or to give them the entire monopoly of certain routes, it will work vice versa too, so MH can/will be given some leeway like a spoilt child to have its way :clapping:

 

I still don't understand why MH and the MoT are against D7's application for the SYD route. Competition is always healthy and it makes the other rivals improve on their services and at the end of the day, the customers gain the most from the competition. See how AK and D7 has brought about the cheap fares, which connects very well with their tag line, "Now Everyone Can Fly". I never believed I could fly to East Malaysia with the crazy price that MH was monopolising. Besides making SYD a target for now, AK and D7 should still venture into other possibilities. If MH has spent so much on SYD and establishing it, why is it that its failed terribly and they cant sustain a twice daily flight ? Why does D7 or other competitors have to suffer just because the SYD route is going bust for MH ? Perhaps MH should stop giving freebies to certain quarters on first class and revamp the whole cabin and marketing instead of competing with a budget airline. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azizul,

 

Since when are VS and LA competing with SQ ?

 

Guys,

 

Although D7 operates to another London airport than MH, can anyone explain to me how much traffic MH lost since D7's start of operation there ?

If it's negligible, why 'oppose' D7's entry in the SYD market ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azizul,

 

Since when are VS and LA competing with SQ ?

 

Guys,

 

Although D7 operates to another London airport than MH, can anyone explain to me how much traffic MH lost since D7's start of operation there ?

If it's negligible, why 'oppose' D7's entry in the SYD market ?

 

I guess what Azizul meant was VS abd Lan are in the same bussiness hence pax carriers as SQ so it makes them a competitor,maybe not directly on certain route by indirectly yes.

Also Azizuls point that if SQ can venture creativly to expand offshore so can MH if they so wish too,nothing is dtopping them as apposed to being sour grapes over Ak's off shore units.

 

From history MH had being doing 2 dailys to LHR (there was a third one for a short period). When Ak started flying to UL, Mh 2 dailys never decreased or increase in frequency.So in that sense I guess thaeir market share did not change much,otherwise they woulf have decreased the number of flights to LHR <_>

Edited by jadivindra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AirAsia X backs a clear national aviation policy

 

CEO: We also welcome competition on a level playing field

 

WE welcome the assertion by Tengku Datuk Azmil Zaharuddin, the MD/CEO of MAS, that “Malaysia needs a clear aviation policy – one that offers real choices to consumers and that benefits the country.” (StarBizWeek, May 1 2010, headlined: “To compete and collaborate”.

 

It is good to know that MAS is willing to join hands with us to work with the Government on delineating such a policy and ensuring free and fair competition on a level playing field (which Tengku Datuk Azmil says MAS welcomes).

 

The whole idea, of course, is that consumers should gain and Malaysia can benefit from increased tourist arrivals.

 

Tourism is listed as one of the National Key Economic Areas. And according to a study commissioned by Khazanah Nasional, the Malaysian aviation sector has a multiplier effect of 12 on the national economy.

 

Hence, a clear aviation policy, overseen by an independent regulator, provides strategic benefits to a nation’s economy as a whole.

 

It is in this context that we would like to respond to the article by Tengku Datuk Azmil.

 

There are several specific points he raised that we take issue with and whose accuracy we question, but we will limit our response to the broader issues.

 

First and foremost, let’s be clear that MAS and AirAsia X (AAX) serve very different market segments.

 

We are a low-cost carrier (LCC); MAS is a legacy carrier.

 

Thus, whether the routes we are allowed to operate overlap with those of MAS should not even be an issue.

 

We serve the underserved; legacy carriers serve the elite (those wanting premium lounges, unlimited servings of food and drinks, etc).

 

A four-member Malaysian family whose monthly household income is less than RM 3,000 will find it difficult, if not impossible, to travel to, say, Sydney on a legacy carrier at present.

 

Neither is an Australian family with a similar sort of income going to be able to visit Malaysia.

 

But those families may be able to do so if they are given the choice of flying on an LCC.

 

In short, AAX grows the market.

 

Here are the facts:

 

1. Markets have grown significantly wherever AirAsia X has been allowed to fly, even when in parallel to MAS.

 

In 2009, annual passenger volume grew significantly on routes that AirAsia X operates in parallel with MAS: Perth (66%), Melbourne (41%), London (31%) and Taipei (57% - since July 2009).

 

This contrasts starkly with long-haul routes where we did not fly: Sydney (-20%), Seoul (-13%), New Delhi (-20%), Tokyo (-10%), Osaka (-16%), and Paris (-15%).

 

Clearly, we have been able to tap new segments and made it possible for new passengers to travel on the routes we operate.

 

Interestingly, even when Jetstar was allowed to compete with MAS on the KL-Sydney route, passenger volume grew by 22% during the one year they operated, compared to the previous year.

 

Beyond passenger volumes, inbound tourists have also grown from markets which AirAsia X operates.

 

Tourism Malaysia data records the following growth in 2009: Australia (+25%), United Kingdom (+17%), China (+7%), and Taiwan (+4%).

 

In contrast, markets where we have not operated shrank: South Korea (-15%), Japan (-9%).

 

It is unfortunate that MAS tried to assert that AirAsia X carries mainly transit passengers that do not contribute to Malaysia’s tourism.

 

They wrongly referred to a statistic that does not measure transit passengers, but passengers that have another flight up to 14 days later.

 

Many of our passengers who take AirAsia flights to Penang, Pulau Langkawi and Kota Kinabalu are bona fide tourists, as are those that stay in KL for 2-14 days before taking another flight, as part of the growing multi-destination trend brought about by AirAsia’s low regional fares.

 

In fact, a more robust analysis using like-for-like data sources such as Australia’s passenger arrival data or the PaxIS data quoted by MAS will show that MAS carries a much higher share of transit passengers that arrive from their Australian flights and connect straight to Europe or India – e.g., MAS transit passengers from Melbourne are 67%, Perth 61% and Sydney 59%, compared to AirAsia X carrying 28%-33% transit passengers.

 

2. The biggest market growth opportunity for Malaysia is from key trunk routes, and not 34 peripheral cities.

 

With limited valuable aircraft capacity, Malaysia needs to smartly deploy it to the markets with the biggest unserved demand.

 

Where does Changi have the biggest gains in passenger volumes compared to KLIA?

 

There are more than double the flights to and from there from cities like Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney, Beijing and Seoul which results in over 3.2 million more passengers from 5 cities.

 

In contrast, there is only a net gap of 224,000 from the 34 peripheral cities MAS is suggesting.

 

Would Malaysians want more flights to Sydney or Jeddah, or would they want Almaty, Tashkent, Ashgabat, Sana’a, Peshawar, Mahe, Port Moresby, Darwin, Pyongyang, Dili, Changsha?

 

Where is Malaysia realistically going to get the most economic benefit?

 

MAS itself has withdrawn from several of the cities that it is now suggesting AirAsia X should operate.

 

Singapore succeeds because it allows competition to thrive.

 

It is misleading to say Tiger Airways and SIA do not compete, citing a 17% overlap based on SIA’s route network.

 

Please check Tiger Airways’ IPO prospectus report dated Jan 13, 2010.

 

They fly to 20 destinations, and compete head-to-head with SIA/SilkAir on 75% of the routes.

 

They explicitly mention on page 19 that they regard SIA as a significant competitor and neither coordinate routes nor have any commercial cooperation agreements with SIA.

 

They don’t fly long-haul because they choose not to do so, not because of any policy to discourage overlapping.

 

Countries like Australia, New Zealand, UK, Taiwan and South Korea all encourage significant route overlaps among all their local airlines.

 

When we add more flights to Melbourne, more people do indeed choose to fly from KL instead of Singapore or Bangkok.

 

Here are the 2009 annual passenger growth rates from Australian Immigration data: Melbourne: +47% from KL vs 0% from Singapore and -2% from Bangkok; Perth: +67% from KL, vs -2% from Singapore and -8% from Bangkok.

 

In contrast, Sydney: -19% from KL, vs -3% from Singapore and -5% from Bangkok.

 

How many people flew from Malaysia to Sydney in 2008 that did not use MAS? 86,612 according to the authoritative Australian Passenger Arrival card data.

 

3. We should not be distracted by irrelevant assertions.

 

MAS makes a big hue and cry about AirAsia X cancelling a service to Abu Dhabi and not flying on some routes where we were granted approvals.

 

How does MAS itself justify cutting many more routes and not flying to many more cities for which it has approval?

 

Let’s name just a few: New York, Stockholm, Manchester, Vienna, Zurich, Fukuoka, Nagoya, Cairo, Ahmadebad, Darwin, Xian, Chengdu.

 

AirAsia X has also invested in starting new routes, including Gold Coast, Tianjin, Hangzhou, and restarted Chengdu.

 

These are big cities and destinations in their own right.

 

MAS is being disingenuous in portraying these new routes as the same as flying to Brisbane, Beijing or Shanghai (each of which is at least 100 kilometres away from the above-mentioned airports).

 

But if MAS insists on claiming they are the same, perhaps MAS would be willing to swap slots and allow us to fly to Brisbane, Beijing or Shanghai instead?

 

Other factual inaccuracies that need to be corrected: AirAsia X does fly to Tianjin.

 

We received formal approval for 7x weekly services to Seoul from the Ministry of Transport on April 14, 2010.

 

We have not received approval for Paris-Orly. We never applied for Male, Maldives.

 

That was AirAsia Bhd.

 

Finally, the issue of Rural Air Services is also irrelevant.

 

The operations by Fly Asian Xpress were fully audited by the National Audit Department and no anomalies or irregularities were found.

 

FAX did not make any gain as all government funds were used to cover expenses, which incidentally were higher because of (a) higher global fuel prices, (B) higher service charges by MAS engineering services and pilots, and © higher aircraft lease rates charged by Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd, MAS’ parent company.

 

To be utterly frank: Indonesia allows Lion Air to compete with Garuda to fly to Jeddah to give more options for people to perform the haj and umrah; Singapore allows multiple airlines to fly the same routes and achieves success; and Malaysia has no issue with foreign-owned airlines such as Jetstar and Emirates operating the same routes as MAS to Australia.

 

So, why is MAS creating a furore over a Malaysian-owned airline, AirAsia X, flying to Sydney?

 

Yes, AirAsia X is aggressive and outspoken.

 

That’s because we are deeply passionate about what we do: growing the travel and tourism industry, innovating and breaking down barriers to make it more affordable for everyone to fly.

 

The data and evidence conclusively prove the benefits to the Malaysian economy and to consumers of allowing competition – not just in aviation but in any industry.

 

Yes, we will become a “co-pilot” and fly to Sydney and Jeddah together with MAS. And together we will help boost the Malaysian economy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although D7 operates to another London airport than MH, can anyone explain to me how much traffic MH lost since D7's start of operation there ?

If it's negligible, why 'oppose' D7's entry in the SYD market ?

I think D7 CEO, Azran, answered your question in his statement above!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH should concentrate to compete with its traditional rivals (other legacy carriers) eg. SQ, CX, EK etc. not AK or D7 which is on a totally different league. However, the way i see MH has already been distracted by AK / D7 and 'downgrade' itself to a lower league to compete with a LCC. They should instead stay on its 'own league', compete with its rivals with better products & services. MH & AK/D7 can supplement each other rather than head to head competition.

 

Anyway, isn't it looks familiar in this country ? Malaysia used to compete (in term of economy) with Korea, Taiwan & Singapore in the 60s & 70s, then Thailand in the 90s, then Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia........ All i want to say is we need healthy competitions. We will strive for a better efficiecny & results thru competitions. We will lose our competiness under the umbrella of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He also disputed AirAsiaX’s claim that 80,000 people flew to Sydney from KL indirectly saying that according to data collated by the International Air Transport Association, only 2,848 passengers flew from KL to Sydney indirect in 2009 and 2,359 so far in 2010.

 

How many people flew from Malaysia to Sydney in 2008 that did not use MAS? 86,612 according to the authoritative Australian Passenger Arrival card data.

I know there is something not right with the statistics being brought up by MH's CEO. 2,000+ passengers flying SYD-KUL indirectly in a year does not make any sense. Now we get to see which CEO does his research and which one just sign off a pre-prepared counter attack press statement prepared by a team of (unfortunately, misleading) spin doctors (as Uncle Tony's claim) LOL.

 

The statistics that Azran showed up always very impressive. Made MH looks very amateur-ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to draw the line

By Presenna Nambiar

 

 

Malaysia Airlines (MAS)(3786) and AirAsia are at it again. And this time, everything points to a bare-knuckled fight.

 

One is struggling to survive in an environment that is making the high-cost legacy carrier model all but obsolete, the other is trying to grow as much as and as fast as it can.

 

In the latest dispute, MAS is adamant that AirAsia should not be allowed to fly the Kuala Lumpur-Sydney route. But AirAsia is insistent that it should.

 

This is not the first time MAS and AirAsia are eye-balling one another and one may ask why.

 

An aviation policy that is so "fluid" that air traffic rights are given (or not given) based on how hard you lobby for it, who the minister of the day is, or by the need to protect national interests.

Given the situation, MAS and AirAsia will continue to lobby, at government level and in the media, until and unless the government, specifically the Transport Ministry, comes up with a definitive aviation policy framework, which clearly states the direction of the local aviation industry.

 

Closed doors meetings between the government and both airlines, and unwritten rules, are no longer going to cut it.

 

The irony of it all is that if there's one thing both airlines agree on, it's that there is a need to have a policy framework for the aviation industry, a sort of do's and dont's.

 

AirAsia chief Datuk Seri Tony Fernandes, for example, said he has always been in favour of an independent regulator for the aviation industry.

 

He went as far as to say that he dreams of a regulator like Bank Negara Malaysia's Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, whom he says allows for both foreign and local competition in the industry.

 

MAS managing director Datuk Tengku Azmil Zahruddin has also called for a long-term, comprehensive and impartial policy that will ensure that the country and rakyat takes precedence.

 

Sure, one might argue that MAS and AirAsia's ideas of an impartial regulator may be different, but the onus lies on the government to decide what is best not only for the nation, but also the industry and consumers.

 

Ahead of a world with open skies, Malaysia needs to make a stand on how open it wants to be.

 

All said and done, a framework is a promise by the government to stick to a plan, one that is not susceptible to lobbying.

 

Source: http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/paf/Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...