Malaysia Airlines troubles.

Charter · 07-21-2014, 03:49 PM

One of the most important and reliable airline of the world, Malaysia Airlines, is in big troubles after the loss of two B777-200's. Since 2011 the airline is losing money and it was struggling to survive; some wrong strategies, unprofitables routes, the decision to buy the A380, the competition of low cost airlines (Air Asia, for example), have caused a danger situation. Then the tragic loss of two airplanes and about 537 dead: the flight MH370, a B777-200 disappeared over the Indian Ocean four months ago with 239 people on board, and the flight MH17, another B777-200, shot down by amissile launched by...Russian?, Ukrainian?, rebels pro-Russia?...however criminals, with the loss of 298 people, many children. The MH17 was flying over a war zone and this is another point of harsh criticism to the airline: it seems that to save fuel and because of its economic difficulties, the airline did not change the flightpath of the Amsterdam - Kuala Lumpur route, even if it was over a war zone.
The airline is owned by the government's sovereign wealth fund for 60% and for the near future there are two solutions:
- a restructuring of the airline with new investments, passing for a kind of "Chapter 11" as for USA airlines;
- bankruptcy.
One thing is sure: Malaysia Airlines continues to be one of best airline for inflight service, according to Skytrax.
The last news: the airline decided to change the code of flight MH17 (Amsterdam - Kuala Lumpur), becoming MH19.

Citiflyer · 07-21-2014, 04:05 PM

MH has been in financial difficulties for a long time. It feels to me that MH doesn't know what it wants to be. They have the A380 flying in a completely different scheme to the rest of the fleet. The 737s flying in the new scheme and the 777s flying the old colours. Its all very confused.

I think they need a new brand image. Once the dust settles from MH370 and MH17, I would relaunch the carrier and start with a unified image.

LeoMuse747 · 07-21-2014, 04:20 PM

They seem to have a strange fleet actually:

- 737-800s and A330s for regional/Asian/Australia routes
- 777-200ER and A380s for long haul.

The 777s are being phased out. So their only long haul plane will be the A380?

Why didn't they order the 777-300ER, for example?

Actually I wonder why they are retiring the 777. They should get a whole new batch from Boeing, with some GE90s instead of RR engines. There are tons of 777-200ERs still in operation, so why retire them? I know that many of the ones in MH fleet were ordered in the mid 90s so maybe it's correct to phase them out, but why didn't they order new ones?

IMHO they should figure this out. And I really wonder if the A380 is a good plane for them...

DutchCollector · 07-21-2014, 04:28 PM

I agree with Leo. The B777 phase-out isn't that smart. The B777 is used on many long-haul routes; FRA, AMS, Jeddah, Perth, Beijing.. Some of these the A330-300 can't do (AMS, FRA..) The A380 would be an overkill on these routes (well, MH19, or MH17, seems to do well)

So, why retiring the aircraft that is good for MH's capacity. They indeed have to rebrand and choose 1 livery for all their aircraft.

What would be the impact of losing 2 B777's for their routes? I know a B747-400 has been entered in service once again. Flew investigators to Kiev and relatives of MH17 victims to Kiev from Amsterdam and Kuala Lumpur.

Southwest&Blue · 07-21-2014, 05:17 PM

I think the two incidents have no relation to each other or the airline.

MH370, Well nobody knows what happened.
MH17, wrong place at the wrong time.

I do however think they have a corporate problem. Example, with the liveries. Perhaps, the A380 livery is supposed to be a modern livery for a modern aircraft.

Phasing out the T7 is a bit odd, with having your only longhaul with the A388. It's either time to place some orders for the A350, 787-9, or 77W. Or just let someone take over the airline.

AVIator85 · 07-22-2014, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charter

One thing is sure: Malaysia Airlines continues to be one of best airline for inflight service, according to Skytrax.

I was prooven wrong when I relied on that Skytrax ranking. I flew MH005 and MH006 in May FRA-KUL-FRA on one of their aging 777 and was realy dissappointed. First the service was aweful, second I had two times broked headphones, third the newspapers and broschures in the seatpockets were gross and in a realy bad shape and on the flight back the crew collected the headphones one hour before landing.
So for my experience MH is behind Lufthansa and far away from all the other asian carriers. Maybe they have diffrent product on their A380 or maybe businessclass is better, but I guess that counts for every airline.

A reorganization and a focus on good quality in all areas should be their goal.

TapAirPortugal · 07-22-2014, 06:21 AM

Reply to Charter main topic:
I don't agree with you when you said the MH17 was flying over a war zone just to save money in fuel costs, this is indeed an airline route, bear in mind that after this terrible loss,LH, AF and many others changed their route when flying routes to asia, specifically this route as they were also using this very same route, so what I want to say is this: it was the MH 777, but it could also be a LH 380 or a AF 777 or any other aircraft, so MH was defacto in the wrong place at the wrong time

Charter · 07-22-2014, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TapAirPortugal

Reply to Charter main topic:
I don't agree with you when you said the MH17 was flying over a war zone just to save money in fuel costs, this is indeed an airline route, bear in mind that after this terrible loss,LH, AF and many others changed their route when flying routes to asia, specifically this route as they were also using this very same route, so what I want to say is this: it was the MH 777, but it could also be a LH 380 or a AF 777 or any other aircraft, so MH was defacto in the wrong place at the wrong time

From Daily Mail:

Flight MH17 'could have avoided Ukrainian airspace for an extra $66 per passenger'

Flight MH17, a Boeing 777-220ER aircraft, costs $25,000 an hour to run
A 45-minute diversion would have cost Malaysia Airlines up to $18,750 for the full journey
Operating costs include fuel, cabin crew, maintenance, insurance and ground services
Aviation expert Ron Bartsch said it was up to the airline which route to take

Diverting the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 around hostile Ukrainian airspace would have cost the airline just $66 a passenger, calculations have revealed.
The additional 45 minutes of flight time that would have been required to divert the flight - accounting for costs such as fuel, maintenance, and cabin crew - would have cost the airline between $15,500 and $18,750.
That figure is based on direct operating costs running at up to $25,000 an hour for the 777-220ER aircraft.

The equation roughly comes to $66 per passenger, The Australian newspaper has reported, and aviation experts believe the cost-saving mechanism is why many airlines have opted to take cheaper, more direct routes.

Rerouting the passenger jet would have cost the airline roughly $66 a passenger

If the plane was rerouted with an additional 45-minute flight time, it would have added roughly between $14,500 and $18,750 to the Boeing 777-220ER total operating costs

Citiflyer · 07-22-2014, 05:45 PM

MH wasn't the only airline operating there. At the time there was an Air India 788 and Singapore plane very close by.

TapAirPortugal · 07-23-2014, 01:57 AM

I understand you Charter, but you know how media is, they always speculate. I also said that I wouldn't agree with you rather than say: you are wrong. Anyway this was horrible

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charter

From Daily Mail:

Flight MH17 'could have avoided Ukrainian airspace for an extra $66 per passenger'

Flight MH17, a Boeing 777-220ER aircraft, costs $25,000 an hour to run
A 45-minute diversion would have cost Malaysia Airlines up to $18,750 for the full journey
Operating costs include fuel, cabin crew, maintenance, insurance and ground services
Aviation expert Ron Bartsch said it was up to the airline which route to take

Diverting the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 around hostile Ukrainian airspace would have cost the airline just $66 a passenger, calculations have revealed.
The additional 45 minutes of flight time that would have been required to divert the flight - accounting for costs such as fuel, maintenance, and cabin crew - would have cost the airline between $15,500 and $18,750.
That figure is based on direct operating costs running at up to $25,000 an hour for the 777-220ER aircraft.

The equation roughly comes to $66 per passenger, The Australian newspaper has reported, and aviation experts believe the cost-saving mechanism is why many airlines have opted to take cheaper, more direct routes.

Rerouting the passenger jet would have cost the airline roughly $66 a passenger

If the plane was rerouted with an additional 45-minute flight time, it would have added roughly between $14,500 and $18,750 to the Boeing 777-220ER total operating costs

geosnail · 07-23-2014, 04:27 AM

But the thing is, that no one could have expected this. Noone knew a plane can be shot down by these idiots. The Ukrainian air space was open and "safe" as Eurocontrol described it
..

c5maier · 07-23-2014, 06:58 AM

If I read about the consequences about the detour, I can understand every airline that did not take it voluntarily.

Let's face it: If I were looking for a flight AMS - KUL and I see two offers on the internet with similar quality and similar timing but one takes 45 minutes longer and costs 66 $ extra, it is obvious that I would take the quicker and cheaper flight - who wouldn't? In both cases I can be reasonably certain that I will reach my destination safe and sound, as the international air transport community is highly regulated and shows a remarkable safety record.

I could also put it differently: Who says that the 18 000 $ are not more than the total margin MAS had on this flight, as typical margins in the industry hover at low single figures?

Christoph

Southwest&Blue · 07-27-2014, 01:23 AM

Looks like MH will go under some new business techniques. Rumored, MH hired people to reconstruct the airline. Which, sounds like something they should do.

Malaysia Airlines in brand overhaul after MH17 and MH370 - Telegraph

Charter · 07-30-2014, 08:14 AM

A fresh news: Malaysia Airlines ready for the rebranding and, after the two B777's tragedies it is ready to change name and to revise all the routes.

Sierra_Echo_Bravo · 07-30-2014, 08:52 AM

Phasing out the 777's seems like a bad call, I agree with others that the A380 may have been a mistake and their fleet structure seems a bit confused.
For the rebranding the Malaysian government should take a close look at aircraft fleet structure similar to LCC's in the region.
Its sad that MH has been the victim of two aviation international incidents that were as far as we know not directly their fault. I hope they come out as a strong competitor after the rebranding

Cheers, Seb