A330MAS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1155 times:
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1077 times:
I agree with the comments above - mind you I think in terms of service you don't need to go as far as HKG. Changi airport services although not brilliant (although no airport is on this) is definately a class above KUL. It is unfortunate that although the airport buildings and facilities are some of the best in the world - the airport staff still perform much like they did at the old Kuala Lumpur airport. Not only are they less efficient than neighbouring airports - they often lack a smile and can generally be quite unhelpful.
Malaysia Airlines is keen to make KUL a world hub but is consistently let down by the ground staff and its often quirky scheduling. The ground staff need to realise and be trained in the fact that KUL IS a world-class airport and they need to sharpen things up. The duty-free outlets are unprofessional - eg. when purchasing my usual brand of aftershave, the lady there was trying very hard to convince me that I was making a wrong choice and should go for the offer brand - and there seems to be a lack of a joint-effort between the shops to promote KUL as a shopping haven. Simple things like perhaps a single KUL Airport shopping bag as a method of advertising abroad via all departing passengers.
MAS schedule is also rather shabby in places - a shortfalling which will hamper KUL's position as a regional hub. Whilst one can fly several times a day to most parts of Asia / World from SIN - a much reduced schedule exists from KUL. MAS has a substantial fleet of 737s and they should be used to boost services to regional routes. For example : KUL-BWN, KUL-SGN and KUL-HAN should be serviced at least once a day and not several times a week. Similarly, many other regional routes like CMB also need boosting. The list goes on...
In short - KUL's downfall is the fact that its REAL potential is yet to be tapped efficiently.
A330MAS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1058 times:
Thanks Mas777 and Triple Seven, for your inputs. This then begs the question of another sorts. Talent pool. Both, Malaysia and Singapore are close together. In fact, MY and SG were part of one country until the mid 60s. Thus, they ARE the same inhabited by the same group of people. How then can SG be getting all the better end of the talent pool? For example, I must say that almost 60% to 70% (or close to it) of Singapore Girls (flight stewardess) are Malaysians. Thus, both, the quality of people in SQ and MH are the same. Why is it that SQ consistently obtains awards for best in-flight service while MH doesn't? What are we missing here? I do not think that SQ's cabin crew training is far superior as compared to MH's. I suspect that they are about the same. What about the grounds staff? Again, both groups came from the same talent pool, why the difference in standards?
As for why I compared KUL with HKG rather than SIN because both, KUL and HKG opened around the same time. Besides, I've never been to SIN(personal reasons behind this), so, I cannot compare.
This is just too bad...MH with MAB should take heed and spruce up the image of their staff.
SQ777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1048 times:
I think most Malaysian and Singaporean know the reason why the two countries operate in different mode. It is a political problem and I should not discuss it here.
Anyway, personally I feel that KLIA is a modern and fantastic airport in term of the facilities. But it is just too far from the city (KL), too few airliners fly there and MAS is just not big enough to keep it fully utilized.
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1041 times:
Well I don't entirely agree with some comments here :
Malaysia Airlines and Singapore Airlines are two carriers that have won excellent accolade throughout the world over the years.
The fundamental operating and service differences stem from the split of Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. Whilst some say that MSA should never have split - it is obvious that Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore could never cope with one airline servicing the three nations - although Gulf Air doesn't subscribe to this (NB. The Gulf nations are very much smaller).
Malaysia Airlines (MAS) was set up to operate domestic and a selected few regional flights based at Kuala Lumpur, whilst Singapore Airlines was set up as the International division (hence S.I.A). This led to MAS being run as a public service company - much like a national railway or bus company. SIA meanwhile was groomed to fly to exotic and faraway cities and with this came international exposure.
This is the main reason why SIA tends to have a higher profile worldwide whilst MAS has found itself chasing after SIA in the international arena. Service fundamentals don't really vary too much between the two carriers (numerous discussions have been had on this forum in the past) but you can't escape the fact that more international travellers recognise SIA more that MAS dur to the above history.
On the operations front - SIA still does not have a domestic division which many carriers would confirm can drain an airline financially - especially with the low government-set airfares in Malaysia.
So all in all - both airlines deserve to win awards. There is little politics involved with the running of either carrier - it is just the fact that although they are neighbouring and competing airlines, they operate in rather different markets.
Triple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 1040 times:
I agree with Mas777. Where MAS is right now is admirable taking into consideration that MAS operates 36 domestic flights at a loss because of government fare regulations. As for MAS staff (both ground and inflight) I think they are just as good or if not better than SIA. Here we can testify on the fact that MAS has won several awards for outstanding services. As for the KLIA staff its probably all due to the reason of bad management. I'm a Malaysian and I've been to KLIA many times and I can clearly see the difference between the staff of KLIA and MAS.