Malaysia Airlines orders Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Malaysia Airlines orders Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Malaysia Airlines has agreed to buy eight Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners and eight Boeing 737 MAX 8 jets as the Oneworld airline looks to boost services on its busiest routes.

Malaysia Airlines may double an order of 25 of the single-aisle 737 Max 10 over the next five years, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak Najib said at a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday before the announcement.

The agreement – worth US$3.06 billion at list prices that exclude customary discounts – marks a victory for Boeing in a competition that had been viewed as favoring rival Airbus.

Malaysia had been in talks for the European planemaker’s A330neo wide-body jets but had been unable to reach a deal on price, Chief Executive Officer Peter Bellew said in an interview in June.

Najib said there is a “strong probability – not possibility – probability that we will add 25 more 737 Max 10 in the near future. So within five years, the deal will be worth beyond US$10 billion.”

Taken private by the nation’s sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional, the carrier has been trying to win back customers following two fatal air crashes in 2014. The carrier, on track to become profitable in 2018, has been adding more services in Asia after cutting jobs and unprofitable long-haul routes to keep the business afloat.

The airline leased six Airbus A350s to offer flights to London from the first quarter of 2018.

It has also ordered 737 MAX 9 and MAX 10 aircraft from Boeing with deliveries expected in 2019 and 2021, respectively.

The company should be cash-positive in the second half of 2018, Malaysia Airlines chief executive officer Peter Bellew said in July.

The airline is focusing on business class and premium cabins as well as transporting passengers from other carriers to increase revenue, he said. China, India, Japan and Taiwan are its growth markets, and the airline will add more routes to these destinations over the next few years, he said

 

13 Comments

  • Jason Bird

    Speedbird

    13 Sep, 2017 07:21 am

    Hmmmmmm as a passenger I'm no fan of the Nightmareliner.. MUCH prefer the experience on the A350. Wider cabin, wider seats... can't argue with that.
    Member who gave thanks

    hbamsey

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 04:18 pm

    Hmmmmmm as a passenger I'm indifferent between the "Nightmareliner" and the 350XtralongWaitforBuyer.  NO preference in experience between 787 vs 350. Only 5inches wider cabin, and 0.56inche wider seats make little diff between the 2... can't argue with those actual specs published by Airbus & Boeing.
    Member who gave thanks

    azriazmi90

  • jarz

    jarz

    13 Sep, 2017 04:24 pm

    Sat on Ethiopian, Royal Brunei B787-8 and SQ A350. No difference in seating width that 1inch did not difference. However i do find leg room affects my comfort a lot.
    Member who gave thanks

    azriazmi90

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 04:56 pm

    @jarz:
    "Sat on Ethiopian, Royal Brunei B787-8 and SQ A350."
    I went even further by trying the Y on 787 AND 350 operated by the same airline such as QR and VN.  I can't detect that 0.56 inch diff in Y seat width for each case....I must be suffering fm a physical sensory disability or forgot to bring my laser measuring equipment....

    "...i do find leg room affects my comfort a lot."
    Which has nothing to do with whether U are flying in Y on a 787 or 350 or 330/340 or 767 or 777 or 380 or 747 or even a DC3.... 
    Member who gave thanks

    azriazmi90

  • Steve987

    Steve987

    13 Sep, 2017 07:50 am

    If you are a hub airline does the 787 make sense? I would have thought They would be better with a combo of 380s and short distance carriers?
    No member give thanks

  • Dave

    Grannular

    13 Sep, 2017 09:20 am

    The A380 clearly hasn't worked for them...
    No member give thanks

  • devilish

    devilish

    13 Sep, 2017 10:14 am

    The major reason the 380 hasn't worked is due to the twin incidents which hit the airlines total passenger numbers and yield hard.

    Now that they are in the re-building phase, the 350 is much better suited for the LHR runs.
    No member give thanks

  • watson374

    watson374

    13 Sep, 2017 01:56 pm

    The A380s were never going to work for MH. They bought them for prestige.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 05:05 pm

    @watson374:
    And that's an inconvenient truth too politically sensitive for the predecessor MH mgmt team and the current MH mgmt team to admit in public.

    380 in MH fleet was a mgmt decision made nearly 2 decades ago essentially because one nation's airline industry policy needed to keep up with the Jones living right nex door.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 05:34 pm

    @devilish:
    "...the 380 hasn't worked is due to the twin incidents which hit the airlines total passenger numbers and yield hard."
    Which raised this question:
    If the 2 incidents drastically impacted MH's total pax & yield(Note: MH has largely recovered in both metrics since then) causing problem for MH to keep flying 380, why the 737NG & 333 in the same fleet are spared fm the same impact?

    MH did fully retired all 772ERs due to the same traffic demand impact after the twin incidents.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 04:30 pm

    @Steve987:
    "If you are a hub airline does the 787 make sense?"
    Gee I don't know.  Does the 359 MH is leasing also make sense?

    In equivalent cabin density/config, 359 is only 11% larger than 789 in terms of usable cabin floor area.

    "...They would be better with a combo of 380s and...."
    Is that why MH has been desperately looking to off-load its entire fleet of brand spanking new 380 for yrs and finally found a way(sort of) to do it?  What a dumb fleet decision by CEO Peter Bellow who only managed the 'easy' task of turning the sinking financial boat of MH around recently....
    No member give thanks

  • Morgan Judd

    Mjudd

    13 Sep, 2017 09:22 am

    A380's aren't a thing anymore. They are about as desired as the Hindenburg in 1938.
    No member give thanks

  • Joe

    Joe

    13 Sep, 2017 10:42 am

    Agree the 787 isn't as good as an A350 as far as pax experience goes. Great aircraft but you actually feel a difference in the A350 where as in the 787 the feeling is negligible.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 05:20 pm

    @Joe:
    Let me try this just for fun since subjective 'feelings' seems to be all the rage here right now and objective measurement out of the window: 
    The 350 isn't as good as a 787 as far as pax experience goes. Great aircraft but you actually feel a difference in the 787 cabin over older designs such as 330/767 where as in the 350 cabin the feeling of improvement over the 787 is negligible....no surprise there since 787 and 350 are fm the same generation of cabin environment tech and they even share many cabin tech vendors/products.
    Member who gave thanks

    MikeAir

  • Ray McIntosh

    raymac

    13 Sep, 2017 11:52 am

    In the last paragraph it states " The airline is focusing on business class and premium cabins ". In the past I have been a loyal MAS customer but having just flown with them a couple of weeks ago their Business Class really needs improving if they want to compete with other major airlines. Some may find my complaints trivial but not providing pre flight champagne, and no alcohol at all on flights under 3 hours, is well below current industry standards. All airline bosses should take a Qatar Airlines flight in Business Class to see how it should be done!!  
    No member give thanks

  • Ian_from_HKG

    Ian_from_HKG

    13 Sep, 2017 03:37 pm

    On long haul they do "offer" pre-flight champagne, but not proactively.  It doesn't come round on the trays, but if you ask, it is provided.  This has happened on my last three LH flights (ever since I spotted another passenger with champagne)
    No member give thanks

  • Ray McIntosh

    raymac

    13 Sep, 2017 04:50 pm

    Yes, we were told they only offer on A380 flights!!
    No member give thanks

  • jarz

    jarz

    14 Sep, 2017 03:13 pm

    Champagne is offerred on MH BKI-NRT flight on the 738 J cabin had it few months ago which was surprising. But believe MH nids to buff up its service. TG 2 hour flight from KUL-BKK and i had selection of wine offering on economy class. The same sector flight on MH i got alcoholic drinks and little turbulence resulted in immediate suspension of hot beverages. Not only that cabin crew down to 4 on most 738 flights causes slow service and airline think puny lunch box with stink up meals for 2 hour flight works to reduce the workload for them.
    No member give thanks

  • Ray McIntosh

    raymac

    14 Sep, 2017 05:27 pm

    Champagne seems to be hit and miss with MH. On the ADL to KL sector two years ago no champagne, last year champagne and this year once again no champagne!! When we told the crew we had it last year they didn't believe us, but having said that,  they certainly made up for it once in the air and couldn't do enough for us. If they were consistent with their policy it wouldn't be so embarrassing when requesting it and then being knocked back!! I feel sorry for the crew with constant policy changes. MH crew are usually great, it's just a pity the product isn't.
    No member give thanks

  • kabe100

    kabe100

    13 Sep, 2017 12:04 pm

    In this instance B787-9 should be compared to A330-300neo. That is why MH was trying to negotiate a deal on A330neos with Airbus. B787-9 cannot be compared to A350-900 as it is smaller and cheaper(list price) than A350. 
    B787 family has a less cabin width than A350. That is why pax feel bit cramped than A350 although they have the same seat width in 9 abreast ecomomy.
    If you compare A350 family with Boeing's B777x family in development you can see that B777x's cabin is at least 14 inches wider than A350. Hence airlines find it is easier to go for 10 abreast economy seating than A350.
    In another note I do not feel A350-900 is more comfortable than B787-9. I have flown in B787-9 with TUIfly and AirNZ. I also flew in A350 with Finnair. I find TUIFly's B787-9 is way quieter than Finnair's A350 and AirNZ's B787. Actually AirNZ's B787 is the noisiest. I had similar seat numbers in all the flights. The difference between B787 of TUIFly and AirNZ is the engine type. TUIFly has the GEnX engines while AirNZ B787 are powered by RR Trent1000. Obviously I felt GEnX are smooth and quieter. I also like the bigger windows and more natural light in B787. Some people may not like it though.


    Member who gave thanks

    Russjking

  • Ian_from_HKG

    Ian_from_HKG

    13 Sep, 2017 04:09 pm

    That's interesting, and shows how subjective this judgment can be.  

    Objective data shows that you are wrong: noise data - EASA - Europa EU.  Although very similar in noise levels, both iterations of the GE engine on the 787-9 are louder than each of the three RR counterparts.  Now I admit that this data is looking at external noise levels - so perhaps you are, in fact, right and that from the perspective passenger the GE engines are quieter.  I can't see how that should be the case, however, in the same airframe as I don't think there is any difference in noise insulation according to engine type.
    However, as I suggest, I think the perceived difference is very subjective - personally I find the drone from GE engines very grating (caused by the tips of the fan blades operating at supersonic speeds, I understand).  You may find something about the RR engines similarly (pardon the pun) disquieting.
    For me, though, RR engines are best :-)
    No member give thanks

  • fresh  thoughts

    freshthoughts

    13 Sep, 2017 04:19 pm

    787 and the A350 don't have the same seat width in economy they just have the same seats per row.
    it would be like saying that 9 across 777 are the same as 9 across 787's.

    A350's average at 17.9-18inch width as opposed to 787 at 17inch
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 09:54 pm

    @freshthoughts:
    "A350's average at 17.9-18inch width as opposed to 787 at 17inch"
    Exactly what Airbus mkting/PR machine has been claiming and some folks took it as the gospel.  For the record, I also tend not to trust Boeing mkting/PR machine whenever they claim/imply whatever cabin advantages they hv over competitors...

    In any case, U are essentially claiming about 1 inch wider per Y seat for 350 over 787.  That's totally 9inches more for 9seats across both cabins assuming equal aisle widths.  I'm a little rusty on my grade 2 primary school mathematics so pls kindly explain how to find 9 inches more space fm the 350 cabin when the max cabin diameter of a 350 is only 5 inches wider than a 787 per official specs published by Airbus and Boeing for aircraft certification purposes with regulators such as FAA and EASA.

    Or we can just simply trust the words fm Airbus mkting/PR and their voodoo magical ability to create more space out of thin air...
    No member give thanks

  • elchriss0

    elchriss0

    14 Sep, 2017 08:34 am

    Didn't you know that Airbus have a special witch doctor they contractor their voodoo work out to?
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 06:50 pm

    @kabe100:
    "In this instance B787-9 should be compared to A330-300neo."
    1st of all, there's no such thing as a "A330-300neo".  Airbus only hv either 330-900Neo(a.k.a. 339 per ICAO convention) or 330-300Ceo listed in their product portfolio.

    Anyway, the only thing comparable(significant though) between 339 and 789 is their usable cabin floor areas(or seat counts in layman terms) - they are practically identical.

    "That is why MH was trying to negotiate a deal on A330neos with Airbus."
    If U hv been following MH widebody fleet planning news for the last 12mths, U would know MH publicly & specifically stated 789, 330Neo AND 359 were all being evaluated for a single prospective order to be made by MH before End2017(which they did now via this MoU /prelim agreement with Boeing).

    "B787-9 cannot be compared to A350-900 as it is smaller and cheaper(list price) than A350."
    Not by much diff in both aspects and easily inter-changeable demanding very very minor adjustments to the investment+network plan of an airline customer.

    Since the 772ER vs 343 mkt battle 2 decades ago, today's 789 and 359 are 2 products closest to each other within the entire Airbus & Boeing widebody portfolios.

    As for "listed prices", U would know they're unrealistic and can only be a very rough guide @ best if U understand the civil aerospace industry.  E.g. 339 is listed for above US$290m while 789 is listed for below US$265m.  If U are only allowed to buy @ listed prices(nobody does in reality), would U buy a 339 instead of a 789 even if U are a die-hard Airbus worshiper?

    "B787 family has a less cabin width than A350."
    Why do so many folks here so tirelessly+repeatedly glorifies  only 5 inches more of max cabin width?

    "I had similar seat numbers in all the flights."
    Unfortunately, similar seat assignment numbers do not equate to similar seat location within the cabin of the same aircraft type...sometimes even within the same airline's fleet due to diff cabin config.

    "The difference between B787 of TUIFly and AirNZ is the engine type."
    Believe me my friend, engine type is only 1 of many potential op factors that can vary cabin noise level on 2 diff flights flown by the same aircraft type.....let alone by 2 diff operators.  Just a few examples on the bucket list that has nothing to do with engine type:
    1.  Pay load+fuel load.
    The heavier these are onboard, the more thrust for longer period must be dialed in by pilots to compensate.  And don't forget that even if U visually observed a cabin is only 2/3 full, the belly invisible to U can still be full of cargo.
    2.  Flying in a head wind or tail wind?
    Pretty obvious how this can affect engine noise level actually being generated.
    3.  Cruise altitude assigned
    It may be chosen due to airspace control requirement /traffic congestion /weather avoidance...not necessarily the most efficient(i.e. lowest thrust requirement) altitude for 787 cruising.
    Member who gave thanks

    kabe100

  • StudiodeKadent

    StudiodeKadent

    13 Sep, 2017 01:39 pm

    This is very surprising. The A330-900neo could've theoretically reached even Dublin so I guess Boeing must have offered a really good deal on the 787-9s (or perhaps on additional 737 MAXes?). On the bright side, this may allow MAS to launch a flight to Vancouver or Seattle but that's unlikely to happen in the first place.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 09:35 pm

    @StudiodeKadent:
    "This is very surprising"
    Initially, I felt the same.  However, after I learnt that this order is part of the 'show' during Malaysia's PM Najib visiting Trump in Washington, it all made sense to me when we heard statements by Najib during his stay like this:
    <<strong probability – not possibility – probability that we will add 25 more 737 Max 10 in the near future. So within five years, the deal will be worth beyond US$10 billion.>>
    Notable that he chose the term "we will add..." even though Najib works for the Malaysia gov't, not for MH. He also made a separate pledge to Trump to <<convince>> AirAsia to buy more GE engines in order to support U.S. econ growth.

    I hv not heard such overt political statements in influencing  airline industry matters for a very long time....not even leaders in Beijing are so overt in favoring manufacturers fm 1 nation over another to fit a particular diplomatic agenda.....

    "The A330-900neo could've theoretically reached even Dublin"
    Almost no range margin left even just in theory, after we account for typical strong headwind in winter+absolute minimum allowance for traffic congestion related detour which <burn> @ least 1,000km worth of range fm the manufacturer's nominal figure of 12,130km for a 339.

    For real live longhaul mission planning by airlines such as MH:
    a) No chance for MH to adopt Airbus assumption of a smaller/lighter, 6abreast layout in J which is not even horizontal lie-flat with direct aisle access for every J seat.
    b) No chance for MH not to take any Rev$ cargo payload in the belly which is set @ zero for Airbus' nominal range figure.  Naturally, this reduces actual available range on a 339.
    c) To ensure robust schedule reliability yr-round(i.e. reduce risk of unscheduled fuel stop), MH will certainly leave way more than 1,000km allowance for headwind+enroute traffic detour.

    "Boeing must have offered a really good deal on the 787-9"
    I would be extremely surprised if Airbus refused to offer a similarly good deal on 339.  On the other hand, unlike U or me shopping in Walmart or Coles, a good deal for airlines may not simply be price but also timing of available delivery slot and we know @ this stage:
    a) MH wants new widebodies delivered yesterday.
    b) 787 production+delivery @ Boeing is stable with some open slots still available fm as early as 2019.
    c) 330Neo production+delivery is far less stable as the 1st prototype received engines only recently @ least 9mths behind schedule.  1st delivery to customer(TAP) won't occur until 2H18 and there're over 200 units in the backlog....little chance MH can start taking delivery before 2020 @ the earliest unless via leasing which they don't want to do for this order.

    " On the bright side, this may allow MAS to launch..."
    Interesting that U implied Boeing offering MH a good deal on 787 and MH took it can be considered as the <dark side>.

    Comments here can be so partisan re Airbus(the bright side of the Force?) vs Boeing(the dark side of the Force?)....
    No member give thanks

  • Volkov Breg

    Volkov

    13 Sep, 2017 03:36 pm

    I don't really get this business plan. The CEO said the market they want to expand to is in India,  China,  Japan and Taiwan. These are regional routes that A330-900NEO are made for.

    This is probably comes down to pricing and some fishy deals. 
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 10:58 pm

    @Volkov:
    This is probably because:
    1.  Longhaul widebodies are very durable asset that can easily last 20-25yrs flying within MH's network.  The oldest 772ER in the fleet served MH 19yrs before being pulled last yr mostly due to drastically falling MH longhaul traffic, not due to airframe age.
    2. The India, China, Japan and Taiwan strategic focus probably last 4-5yrs maximum.  Afterwards(or even slightly before that), MH may want to expand further not being served today...they probably already hv some early mkt assessment/planning done and implementation subject to future mkt condition and obviously no need to do any public communication about them @ this stage.  MH's network may look quite diff 5-6yrs fm now than what they've today.
    3. 789 offers the same or slightly better fuel burn than 339 on regional routes but with built-in capability to go much further than any 330Neo can ever dream of.  The only drawback is that real transaction price for a 789 is likely far higher than a 339 and MH will be <abusing> a longhaul type on regional routes for a while.  Choosing 789 over 339 now suggest MH wants a future-proof type for their potential network expansion later.
    4.  MH may want 1 type equally efficient to do both short and long missions for now and for part of their widebody fleet.  This is reasonable for an operator with such a relatively small widebody fleet scale...MH is no SQ.  SQ fleet scale can hv regional specialist type(i.e. 78J) and ULR specialist type(359/ULR) co-exist...not even a financially revived MH can match that.
    5. 789 in MH fleet decided now does not preclude future buy of 339.  After all, they only committed 789 x8 whereas there're 333 x15 in MH fleet which they can expand with 339 later with almost painless op+support integration.  If leased 359 is just a temp solution @ MH, I foresee MH can easily sustain a 2.5types longterm widebody fleet consist of 789+333/339...a good improvement over their previous 333+772ER+380 combo.
     
    "...comes down to pricing"
    I suspect availability is likely a more important factor.  Realistically, neither 339 nor 359 has delivery slots available for MH within 2-3yrs.

    "...and some fishy deals."
     A bit unfair in my opinion given that 789 has been technically as attractive as 359 for airline buyers in the mkt(I know readers here hate all 787s and adore all 350s).  However, I certainly agree this deal has politics+diplomacy/show U luv Trump  written all over it.
    No member give thanks

  • jarz

    jarz

    13 Sep, 2017 04:15 pm

    Think the A330-900 to replace A330-300 are still in motion based on insider notion just it wont happen anytime soon. They're trying to fill in the gap left between the oversized bus a380 and b772 and the B787-9 fills that gap perfectly with the bargaining price.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 11:29 pm

    @jarz:
    "Think the A330-900 to replace A330-300 are still in motion based on insider.."
    If MH buy 339 within 5-7yrs, it'll still be mostly about 330 fleet expansion rather than wholesale replacement(except to replace a few leased ones) because the oldest 333 in MH fleet today is less than 6.5yrs old.

    "..it wont happen anytime soon."
    But I predict it may eventually happen despite 789 in MH fleet. Expensive op+tech support infrastructure commonalities across 330Ceo and 330Neo are too tempting for a relatively small operator of widebodies like MH to resist...

    "They're trying to fill in the gap left between the oversized bus a380 and b772 and the B787-9 fills that gap perfectly..."
    I believe MH is absolutely done with 380-sized machines thus no gap exists in that space for filling within MH future fleet.  The largest thing MH wants now and in future will be no larger than a 359 or about 300seats....basically, they like the size+payload/range of their 772ERs they've just retired wholesale last yr and they just want something @ the same size+a bit better performance but @ today's fuel efficiency level - both 359 and 789 fit that bill. 
    No member give thanks

  • fresh  thoughts

    freshthoughts

    13 Sep, 2017 04:21 pm

    totally political, the Malaysian PM is meeting with trump this week and the PM is the subject of a US investigation into his corrupt US assets. 
    No member give thanks

  • Dave Thomas

    deethom

    13 Sep, 2017 08:02 pm

    Bad decision by MH, to many types. Should go all narrow body airbus, or Boeing, and do the same with wide bodies, obviously a hand in the back pocket, or bad management call!!!
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    13 Sep, 2017 11:52 pm

    @deethom:
    "Bad decision by MH, to many types."
    How so?  In terms of widebodies in MH fleet, 772ER hv been gone for over 1.5yrs, they're getting rid of 380s in a hurry like there's no tomorrow and all brand new 359s are leased likely on the typical 5-7yrs term with very light maintenance requirements by MH.  The only widebody type remaining @ MH with regular level maintenance support requirements until 789 arrival will be 333.

    "Should go all narrow body airbus, or Boeing"
    MH already is.  They've never operated a 320 family and with this deal, apparently no plan to change the all-737 status quo in the future...

    "..and do the same with wide bodies"
    VS is not a big widebody operator just like MH.  They don't seem to hv a problem operating 333 and 789 side-by-side for the past 3yrs like MH will be about 2yrs fm now.

    I agree MH need to pare-down widebody types in fleet but not necessarily reducing the number of widebody vendors.
    No member give thanks

  • jarz

    jarz

    14 Sep, 2017 03:06 pm

    All Boeing/Airbus fleet does not work for legacy carriers it doesn't work when revenue and mixed yield on various sectors required various type of aircraft operation. What the airline should do is check up its management and overloaded procurement costs instead and pile of dung contracts that have bled the airline and get its customer and first line level service in check. They have the hard product but bean counter has taken a toll on service. 
    No member give thanks

  • Orus Picarous

    oruspicarous

    13 Sep, 2017 10:32 pm

    Pile of baloney, Malaysian PM is under scrutiny for $1 transferred into his bank account from a development fund. Pledging $3 billion now and then saying there's a possibility of ordering up to $10 billion puts Trump in a very bad position to criticise the PM. Smart move though!
    No member give thanks

  • aturnbull

    aturnbull

    13 Sep, 2017 10:35 pm

    Is there type commonality with the 737max and 789s?  Perhaps that proved to be a factor.

    Politically,  I wonder if a large purchase with a US manufacturer is motivated by a want from MH to start service to LAX/SFO.  I think there may have been FAA restrictions on Malaysian carriers that could be reviewed.  A 789 would make the US west coast with a viable payload and give them a significant advantage to competitors if there is underlying demand to the US from Malaysia.
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    14 Sep, 2017 12:11 am

    @aturnbull:
    "Is there type commonality with the 737max and 789s?"
    Technically, absolutely none.  Attractive bulk-buy maintenance deals by GE may be a factor if MH go GENx for 789 since the only engine option for Max is by CFM and GE is the 50% shareholder in CFM.

    That's exactly how AC picked Max over 320Neo due to GENx already on their 787s per popular industry rumors....

    "..a want from MH to start service to LAX/SFO.  I think there may have been FAA restrictions on Malaysian carriers."
    No such restriction/blacklist applicable to MH by FAA on public records(Mandatory for FAA to publish such list).  MH can fly to any U.S. destination tomorrow if they choose to do so.

    Don't know fm where this idea came from....

    "789 would make the US west coast with a viable payload.."
    No surprise there as UA has been doing exactly that to SIN right nex door to KUL for over a yr in a pretty std 789 longhaul cabin/load config.

    "...if there is underlying demand to the US from Malaysia."
    Frankly, pretty small.  I don't see MH in the U.S. mkt until well after 2020 and even then, traffic must still be partially supported by connecting pax in S.E.Asia outside Malaysia such as Indonesia...if GA won't reach U.S. mkt earlier than MH.
    No member give thanks

  • Kin Ho

    KinHo

    14 Sep, 2017 01:48 pm

    MH is constantly competing with SQ. And MH tends to lose out on it's level of service. 
    Geographically SIN and KUL is not that far from each other, and you'd think that KUL should be able to get the similar passenger traffic load (if not do better than) SIN, but somehow it just couldn't grab the market from Changi (lots of reasons to that). 
    If however KLIA is able to attract more airlines and flights coming in, then with MH going back into the US service, the demand can and will be there. I am certain that lots of Malaysian now, find it rather cumbersome having to go via SIN (or other neighboring hubs) just because of a more competitive cheaper airfare, or availability of flights. 
    Good service = Increase passenger demand to fly with the airline. 
    Nowadays you'd find that passengers are willing to pay that little extra for that security and good service factor. It was really unfortunate for MH to have the 2 incidents, and its still hanging over their head. I feel it was really bad fortune, and it's not completely MH's fault. To date nothing has been proven to point to that. However in the end, it is still the passengers' feeling for security that govern things. A really hard nut to crack! and to get back into the good books/reputation. 
    I still fly with them if the airfare is good. I still love their signature satays in J class. They need to improve the EY snack/light meals. Really lousy to the point where at times it's inedible. I'm certain a lot of wastage, because I can see a lot of passengers not touching them, those nasty items that comes in a box. 

    No member give thanks

  • jarz

    jarz

    14 Sep, 2017 03:01 pm

    SIN and KUL are entirely different market. While volume is there yield paying passengers in KUL are so low and marketed more towards Leisure and budget travelers. Luftansa, Air France have already terminated KL while British Airways have downgage the B777 to B789. Malaysians themselves willing to go premium carriers have already flocked to gulf carriers(Them offerring promo price way below MH level to europe) while the remainders are budget hunters which LCC carriers are taking advantage of. MAS is unable to go full head with SQ and CX level and are already at a loosing battle with gulf carriers in ticket base price, with this kind of demand all it could do is maintained a small proper fuel efficient fleet like the A339neo or B789s.
    No member give thanks

  • Kin Ho

    KinHo

    14 Sep, 2017 04:43 pm

    In the end, it's a case of many layers of Catch-22 situations.
    Between the airline and the airport facility/service quality. Where a sub standard airport will impact on the airline, and in turn the airline's poor annual profit will result in cost cutting and hence making its service poorer. Resulting in less passenger, ie, less passenger thru the airport. Airport starts to cut cost, and impact its facility/service quality. And less airlines want to fly there ...
    And add another Catch-22 situation for the airline to purchase the right aircraft based on the customer load. But lousy service will result in less passengers, and in turn the aircraft will be deemed too large for the route. This also impact the airport.

    .... the downward spiral goes on .....
    MH needs to "bite the bullet" and come up with a really sound corporate plan, and head towards positive territory. (easier said ... just see how demanding we as passengers are).
    No member give thanks

  • FLX

    FLX1

    15 Sep, 2017 08:12 pm

    @KinHo:
    "you'd think that KUL should be able to get the similar passenger traffic load (if not do better than) SIN.."
    No need to think because they are...within 9% of each other in terms of annual total pax traffic volume 2016.

    "...somehow it just couldn't grab the market from Changi"
    It's the other way around in reality if U care to look @ the pax traffic statistics....KUL has been growing @ a much much faster rate than SIN:
    1999:
    KUL(1st full yr of its op)= 13.17m
    SIN= 26.06m

    2016:
    KUL= 52.64m(i.e. almost 400% growth)
    SIN= 58.7m(i.e. 225% growth)

    In fact, KUL is projected to surpass SIN in a few yrs on current trajectory.

    "If however KLIA is able to attract more airlines and flights coming in, then with MH going back into the US service"
    "More airlines & flights coming in" @ KUL are nice but not critical.  Almost all of the growth over the past 10yrs @ KUL hv simply been achieved thru 1 existing airline already there adding flights going out.... Even more amazing is that KUL has still grown even when its only U.S. service was pulled by MH a few yrs ago.
      
    "the demand can and will be there"
    The demand is not only already there @ KUL but growing.

    "I am certain that lots of Malaysian now, find it rather cumbersome having to go via SIN (or other neighboring hubs) just because of a more competitive cheaper airfare, or availability of flights. "
    Correct.  That's why so many Malaysians today enjoy cheaper airfares+far more flight availability than SIN by simply going direct/nonstop fm KUL where the world's largest LCC terminal is located and the largest LCC group by far in Asia-Pcf region is based.

    Conversely, even more non-Malaysians(including myself who hv done it many times) don't find it "cumbersome" to go via this giant LCC hub @ KUL to get to wherever they need to go.

    "Good service = Increase passenger demand to fly with the airline."
    Pretty certain good fare was @ least as important as(but likely more important than) good service for that an airline hubbed @ KUL to increase pax demand so drastically over the past 10yrs and continuing to do so....

    "It was really unfortunate for MH to have.."
    But fortunately, airline industry health/growth in Malaysia as well as the fortune of KUL hub hv stopped relying on MH alone a long time ago.

    "Nowadays you'd find that passengers are willing to pay that little extra for that security and good service factor"
    Nowadays I find most pax, almost none of them are readers of ausbt.com.au, want to pay a little bit less for that security and good service factor.

    "However in the end, it is still the passengers' feeling for security that govern things."
    In this airline industry era, it is the pax's increasing demand to get more fm the same $ or to get the same fm fewer $(a.k.a. good airfare) that is governing things in the industry.  Most of them leave security considerations in the hands of relevant regulators or authorities.

    "I still fly with them if the airfare is good"
    Which is a real live case to demonstrate the exact point I hv just made immediately above.

    "They need to improve the EY snack/light meals. Really lousy...a lot of wastage because I can see a lot of passengers not touching them"
    I always find this kinda comments ironic against comments made by other groups(sometimes even the same group?) which lament that LCCs always charge extra for inflight meals....
    No member give thanks

  • Kin Ho

    KinHo

    18 Sep, 2017 12:41 am

    Hi FLX1,
    Based on figures, KLIA2 LCCT, has double the passenger load to that of KLIA main terminal. So that's some 66% of the stats figure you mentioned. 
    Seems to indicate a rather poor premium airlines passenger count. 

    The KLIA2 LCCT may be great for international passenger to connect to regional flights, but ultimately the local passengers are the ones having to go to another hub to fly to US or other European cities apart from London.
    Yes, there maybe Emirates option to get them there, but it's still not a direct flight. As a lot of premium airlines are scaling down their flights to KUL, they are missing out on direct flights. 
    Nothing beats direct flight, especially after a long haul, one would prefer not having to wait for an hour or so to fly another 40 minutes, with taxiing time. 
    Just like MEL and ADL pax avoid flying via SYD. 

    As Jarz said, "paying passengers in KUL are so low and marketed more towards Leisure and budget travelers"
    Hence the stats stacked up that way. 
    I supposed I didn't quite clarify that I'm referring to the similar type of market when I said, "KUL should be able to get the similar passenger traffic load (if not do better than) SIN". I am thinking of the premium airlines sector, and thinking in terms of the long haul flights which the LCC doesn't cover. 

    I just hope that MH will make full use of its new purchase and add (back) a few more European cities, FRA, CDG and AMS. 

    No member give thanks

  • Kin Ho

    KinHo

    13 Sep, 2017 10:55 pm

    Getting the right aircraft fleet for the airline definitely tough!
    At the end of the day .... the most important is for the airline to deliver a good product regardless of the aircraft alone. Yes, to fly in a new aircraft is the utmost aim of everyone, but if what's in it (both fitting comfort and service/food&beverage) isn't up to par and below basic good standards, none of these superb aircrafts will make a profit for the airline when no one wants to fly with them. 

    In the end, good enough cabin comfort with attentive service and good meals, wins!
    No member give thanks

Guest

24 Nov, 2017 04:50 pm

×
×

Forgot Password

If you’ve forgotten your password, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email to re-activate your account and enter a new password.

×