Tweet
"The carrier will also start to take delivery of its A380s from the beginning of 2011. These will be used for high-density routes such as London, Sydney and Amsterdam" - Azmil Zahruddin, MH CEO and Managing Director
Quoted here
Quoted here
-
-
I can understand LHR & SYD and previously AMS, but I saw a 777 two days on the bounce in AMS recently so don't know if they have downgraded on that route.
Truth is they don't need the bloody things. They didn't before the downturn so they definitely don't now. However, if Singapore has some then Malaysia must have some as well, so they've got to send them somewhere. -
thats the only sectors that MH can fly their A380s to and even that doubt that MH can have the loads as its A380s are configured for 550 pax - it seems that MH just want to have the A380s bec its something that they want to keep up with the bigger airlines that have bought and ordered the A380s and just wanna look good. But the reality is that MH does not need the A380s - as can be seen they cant even hold on to their EWR route and even reduce their daily service to LAX - and even have cut itd 3 daily LHR flights to 2 - even before the sep 08 financial woes. MH should have better spent their money to replace its 14 yr old ageing A330s and get new ones and get the 773ERs to replace their 744s - if they really want to reduce their costs and try to return to operational profitability.Comment
-
Yes, I believe I have read something similar to this very recently....Originally posted by flyguy View Post
flyguy, as a special favour to fellow board members any chance you could look at splitting posts into a few seperate paragraphs. It will help make your posts a little easier to read and understand.
MTIA.Comment
-
As far as I know, the Kangaroo route is the only long-haul route that is spinning money for MH.
AMS was downgraded to the 777 some time back. Edit:(This was done after the code-share with KLM which also runs the 777, hence KUL-AMS 2 daily).
From a tourism marketing point of view, the culling of the KUL-ARN-EWR route has been one of the biggest setback this year for the company that I work with - our Swedish markets just vanished into thin air, in addition to the stiff competition that Thailand and (emerging) Bali is giving to Malaysia, as a destination.
While TG has added Oslo, MH has cut Stockholm.
IMHO as a resident on KUL, the A380's were ordered purely based on "what he has, I have to have too" kind of mindset. Disastrous for a once, "illustrious" airline - financed by the people of Malaysia.Last edited by leo; 9 October 2009, 03:39 PM.Comment
-
IMHO as a resident on KUL, the A380's were ordered purely based on "what he has, I have to have too" kind of mindset. Disastrous for a once, "illustrious" airline - financed by the people of Malaysia.[/QUOTE]
Ya also they ordered the A330,747 and 777 based on "what he has, I have to have too".
If Sq have them we also want them?
Same logic right?Last edited by jadivindra; 9 October 2009, 03:39 AM.Comment
-
the A380 is in a different category altogether - from the A330, 777s and the 747s.Comment
-
And so is the 747 compared to A330 and all other plane types.Originally posted by flyguy View Post
Capacity wise A380 450/470 pax (Based on QF/SQ a/c), 747 390pax (MH 744), hence if MH can have no seats available on some routes ex Australia then I see no reason why they cant fill the A380's.
Your argument that they follow SQ is childish at best.Also can you please vrify where did you get the info that MH is puting in 550 pax on their plane?
At the time the order was placed the economy was booming and hence taking all logistics into account a decision was made to replace the aging jumbo's by 2011.Last edited by jadivindra; 9 October 2009, 10:05 AM.Comment
-
there have been few posts on similiar opinions as to MH buying the A380s - and on its seating capacity - u can just google and find out even from MH press releases. As for filling seats well as is its no secret that MH cant even fill up its 2 daily flights from SYD-KUL-LHR even before the sep 08 crisis - and if MH wants to offer cheap throw away fares to fill up its A380 - then of course they can fill the seats - but whether MH wants to be profitable and operate the A380 is a different story.Comment
-
While I agree that the dugong may not be the most suitable plane for MH under current circumstances,but in any bussiness it pays to stay ahead or a least with the competition.(Competion here does not mean SQ but all carriers operating on the kangaroo route)Originally posted by flyguy View Post
Also MH has a reputation in Australia and UK for being a good and safe airline to travel on, hence with good hardware it will only work better for them.
Having said that they do need some alliance of some sort to maximize seat utilisation expecialiy on the Airbus jumbo.
Unfortunately I cant find the said press release but iMHO
I reckon they wont bump 555 seats on that plane.
Imagine if one day they have a MH/SQ shuttle service on the kangaroo route for dugong flights to weed of traffic from middle east airlines.
occasion14:Last edited by jadivindra; 9 October 2009, 10:47 AM.Comment
-
Unfortunately, i don't foresee any profitability for MH in the near future, unless they bleed by charging LCC-ish prices to bring pax from SIN into KUL for onward connections.
I am not saying that MH has less better connections than Golden Goose (have to admit that they serve more market) but the logistical decisions and somehow the fact that they are not in *A, OW or ST draws people away from them
On the software, MH really have impeccable service and human even I find too mechanical on Golden Goose sometimes. Bring back the glory of the mid 90sComment
-
Monkey see, Monkey doComment
-
a very real threat to MH comes more from AK/AX - as once AX gets a go-ahead to fly KUL-SYD perhapd next year (altho now the malaysian govt is not giving in to air asia x yet) - MH even with its A380 service - will definitely be affected and the only way MH can maintain its seats is by giving deep discounts which will mean more load but zero prfitability - as can be seen over the last 18 mths on how MH reacted to AK/AX fares on same routes even though AX is a LCC.
And once AX decides to exercise its rights to fly to Orly, Paris - MH load to Europe will also come under strain; and if AX ups its daily frequencies into Stansdad - MH's KUL-LHR whether on its A380 or not will suffer.
That is why MH must concentrate on improving its economics and most impt its pax yield ie like substuiting its 744s for new aircraft like the 773ER - and not the A380 which it has to try very hard to keep its load up.Comment
-
Originally posted by jadivindra View Post
I disagree with the idea that you have to have an A380 to "stay ahead or a least with the competition [sic]". You can do that with a B777-300ER, or any other modern jetliner.
What matters is that you have things like comfortable seats, good seat pitch, good IFE, good catering and most importantly, quality service.
It's not about what type of aircraft you fly to where. Some people may fly the A380 once for the novelty of it. But once that is done and dusted, other factors like timing, cost, value-for-money etc come into play.
Put it this way, people who participate on this board (and other aviation boards) may know the difference between a A330-200 and a 777-300ER. But the truth is these people are probably but 10, maximum 20 per cent of people who travel by air. Most travellers don't give a damn as to what they fly, as long as its cheap and/or convenient.
I'm not suggesting that it is relevant to MH specifically, but in any sort of business it's important to realise your own strengths and weaknesses, and seek to capitalise on your strengths to win your own loyal following. Any sentiment of vanity is a sure ticket to financial ruin.Comment
Comment