Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Malaysia Airlines - Changes To BNE/SYD Services?  
User currently offlineVhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1494 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7477 times:

I have heard from a reliable source that Malaysia Airlines will be making some changes to its Brisbane service from the Northern Summer 2007.

Services will be increased from 6 weekly to daily and will be operarted by 747-400s

MH will discontinue the non-stop KUL-BNE service and will operate all Brisbane flights via Sydney, with a KUL-SYD-BNE-SYD routing.

I have heard that the daily nightly MH140 SYD-KUL service (currently 772) will be upgraded to the 744 and this will be the flight that operates through Brisbane.

Has anyone heard about any more changes to MH's Australian services? Is KUL-BNE-KUL underperforming?

Interested to hear your thoughts!

Thanks

[Edited 2006-11-12 13:32:13]

[Edited 2006-11-12 13:34:14]


"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFly_yhm From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 1681 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7431 times:

I don't know numbers or anthing but while I was in brisbane I was catching a flight to Malaysia it wasn't to KUL but rather BKI none the less it was still Malaysia and instead ok flying to KUL and connecting over to BKI we actually flew Royal Brunei Airlines via BWN becse it was cheaper. Anyway this is all I have to add to this.

Cheers



Where will you spend eternity? He,s more real then you think!!!!!
User currently offlineEK773 From Malta, joined Jul 2004, 237 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7416 times:

Evening departure from Australia means a morning arrival in KUL. Therefore if that is the only timing to be offered ex BNE, you could virtually forget about the European market which except for LHR depart from KUL in the evening.

User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4516 posts, RR: 72
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7412 times:

Quoting EK773 (Reply 2):
Evening departure from Australia means a morning arrival in KUL. Therefore if that is the only timing to be offered ex BNE, you could virtually forget about the European market which except for LHR depart from KUL in the evening.

Well the current BNE offerings with 3 morning departures and 3 evening departures are not really conducive either. No consistency whatsoever. As discussed in another thread, I find MH's schedules and KUL hub operation very poorly designed and the KUL BNE KUL routing is yet another example of that.


User currently offlineOdiE From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7249 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 3):
I find MH's schedules and KUL hub operation very poorly designed and the KUL BNE KUL routing is yet another example of that.

That's what the current management is trying to change. Ever since Idris became the new CEO, MH has been tweaking its schedule to allow more seamless connections at KUL. I agree that the current KUL-BNE-KUL schedule is incompetent, but IMO, the new schedule will work out a lot better for MH.
MH will be able to provide daily and consistent schedule to BNE and passengers on MH 140 will not arrive at some ungodly hour at KUL.

Quoting EK773 (Reply 2):
Therefore if that is the only timing to be offered ex BNE, you could virtually forget about the European market which except for LHR depart from KUL in the evening.

All European arrivals will be able to connect to the new KUL-SYD-BNE flight. Ideally, MH would need to operate twice daily to BNE in order to connect to its European services. However, it is not possible for MH to operate twice daily to BNE as the amount of passengers on this route does not justify twice daily operations.

Quoting Fly_yhm (Reply 1):
I don't know numbers or anthing but while I was in brisbane I was catching a flight to Malaysia it wasn't to KUL but rather BKI none the less it was still Malaysia and instead ok flying to KUL and connecting over to BKI we actually flew Royal Brunei Airlines via BWN becse it was cheaper.

I don't think MH has ever operated BNE-BKI-KUL. MH has in the past operated SYD/PER-KCH-KUL. IIRC, AO used to operate SYD-BKI.


User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

I believe that the flight would route KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL to avoid the curfew at Sydney. This move would thus improve...

1. consistency, as BNE becomes daily,
2. cost, as planes will no longer be flying with poor loads to BNE and back,
3. product, as the 747 would be better than the alternative of reverting to A330s,
4. scheduling, as MH140 would no longer be scheduled to arrive at 0350 or 0440 from Sydney,
5. aircraft usage, as this frees the 777 originally scheduled 6 times weekly for BNE.

Adelaide should really operate in a similar fashion via MEL for the same reasons in MAS' current climate.

Let's just hope further improvements will continue to be made.

Other improvements that would be great (My TopTen (IMO), in no particular order)...

1. Switching MH7/8 at LHR to a daily 777
2. Making FRA a daily affair (perhaps with a return to MAN tag-on)
3. Removing EZE at ONCE!
4. Save EWR and ARN (oops - have already spoken to the big man about this  Wink )
5. Stop fringe benefits for governmental travel.
6. Expand BAH, KWI into scheduled rather than seasonal
7. Consider MOW, YYZ, CHC, SFO
8. Enhance SE Asian 737 network even further with more 'shuttles'
9. Expand KLM codeshare
10. Rub AF the wrong way again and push for NCE (just for fun, as it did about 10 yrs ago)  Smile

Any other suggestions - i will pass them on on my next KUL visit...


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8499 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Malaysia should dump the servcie to Argentina. Why they fly a 744 half way around the world to South America ? They don't make any money, national prestige? Who are the Malaysians trying to impress.

User currently offlineZKNBX From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 464 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

Agree with the above re KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL

In the past - of course - BNE has been coupled with AKL on some or all days of the week (sometimes there was a split if I remember correctly with 3 x weekly KUL-BNE-AKL and 3 x weekly KUL-AKL non-stop; what happened to additional KUL-BNE services on the days when MH136/7 went directly to AKL?)

Has there been any suggestion of MH plans at AKL in 2007? This could clarify your original question.


User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6804 times:

Quoting EK773 (Reply 2):
ou could virtually forget about the European market which except for LHR depart from KUL in the evening.

The ARN and on to EWR leaves in the morning, arriving in ARN around 16:00. Have done the EWR route three times this year and one more coming up. I really loved the service.


User currently offlineEconojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6702 times:

Quoting EK773 (Reply 2):
Evening departure from Australia means a morning arrival in KUL. Therefore if that is the only timing to be offered ex BNE, you could virtually forget about the European market which except for LHR depart from KUL in the evening.

What MH is doing right now is splitting the BNE schedules into 3x late evening departure and 3x early afternoon departure out of BNE. By selecting the outbound and return on the 'right' days, the passenger might escape the long wait at KUL. Still, any non-standardized schedules would IMHO be unappealing to travelers and add complexities to aircraft rotations.

Perhaps a standardized evening departure on KUL-BNE (morning arrival into BNE) with an early afternoon departure on BNE-KUL (evening arrival into KUL) might be a better compromise. After all, MH does have a late afternoon arrival from LHR (which I imagine to be the primary European market for BNE). For the rest of Europe, there is the KL-operated MH-codeshared AMS connection that gets into KUL in the mid-afternoon. There would still be a 5-6 hour wait for these passengers, though a lot less than 16 hours of waiting - which would happen in the case of an early morning arrival from BNE connecting to the late evening European departure bank (except for LHR-bound passengers who have access to the daylight westbound).


User currently offlineEconojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6648 times:

Quoting OdiE (Reply 4):
tweaking its schedule to allow more seamless connections at KUL. I agree that the current KUL-BNE-KUL schedule is incompetent, but IMO, the new schedule will work out a lot better for MH.
MH will be able to provide daily and consistent schedule to BNE and passengers on MH 140 will not arrive at some ungodly hour at KUL



Quoting MAS777 (Reply 5):
I believe that the flight would route KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL to avoid the curfew at Sydney. This move would thus improve...
1. consistency, as BNE becomes daily,
2. cost, as planes will no longer be flying with poor loads to BNE and back,
3. product, as the 747 would be better than the alternative of reverting to A330s,
4. scheduling, as MH140 would no longer be scheduled to arrive at 0350 or 0440 from Sydney,
5. aircraft usage, as this frees the 777 originally scheduled 6 times weekly for BNE.
Adelaide should really operate in a similar fashion via MEL for the same reasons in MAS' current climate.

That extra stop for people trying to get to BNE will further decrease the competitiveness of MH on that route. It will also be a disservice to the KL-MH co-operation; passengers who already connect through AMS may find that additional stop at the Australian end just beyond their endurance - AF/KL might then decide to consolidate Europe-BNE traffic through CDG and SIN on the AF-QF codeshare.

While I appreciate that arriving at KUL in the dead hours is no fun for passengers aboard the current MH140, would introducing a stop to what is currently a nonstop service be more well-received?

What SQ has done is to forget about overnight flights out of SYD and make the return departing 8.30 the following morning, resulting in an early afternoon arrival back in SIN. Yes indeed, the aircraft sits on the ground at SYD an extra 9-10 hours. But, doing that preserves the regional connectivity at the SIN end.

I believe that SYD is an important enough station in MH's network to at least consider the option of allowing extra ground time in exchange for better revenue potential. At this point, MH wouldn't be lacking aircraft for this experiment.


User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3339 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6607 times:

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
That extra stop for people trying to get to BNE will further decrease the competitiveness of MH on that route.

Not really... as far is KUL goes, MH has no competition, so it can probably 'afford' to do it...

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
While I appreciate that arriving at KUL in the dead hours is no fun for passengers aboard the current MH140, would introducing a stop to what is currently a nonstop service be more well-received?

Yes... that is why TG's overnight SYD-MEL-BKK service has been successful...
better to have a 1.10 transit in a domestic port, and get in at a descent hour.
anything before a 6am arrival, almsot certainly means an extra night accommodation, or long wait til check in.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
What SQ has done is to forget about overnight flights out of SYD and make the return departing 8.30 the following morning, resulting in an early afternoon arrival back in SIN. Yes indeed, the aircraft sits on the ground at SYD an extra 9-10 hours. But, doing that preserves the regional connectivity at the SIN end.

TG is also doing the same at SYD now that the SYD-MEL link is going...

again, this demonstrates the need for a good arrival time into the destination, in which case MH is doing this with SYD and the underperforming BNE route...


User currently offlineOdiE From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6545 times:

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 5):
1. Switching MH7/8 at LHR to a daily 777
2. Making FRA a daily affair (perhaps with a return to MAN tag-on)
3. Removing EZE at ONCE!

1. MH will/have already reduced its frequency to LHR from 18 to 16. The 4 weekly MH 8 is maintained (no brainer there - connections from Australia) while Tuesday and Wednesday flights on MH 4 has been suspended.

2. MH tried that and it wasn't successful. Prior to the route rationalization, MH indeed served FRA daily with B772 (up from 5 weekly B744) for quite a long time. At least they tried serving FRA with a daily B772 before reducing the frequency.

3. Agree...but I don't think it will be axed unless SA flies to EZE and MH code-shares with SA.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 9):
Perhaps a standardized evening departure on KUL-BNE (morning arrival into BNE) with an early afternoon departure on BNE-KUL (evening arrival into KUL) might be a better compromise.

That would be how most airlines have scheduled their BNE flights. However, this would also mean that the aircraft is sitting on the ground for a good 6-8 hours. While this may not be a problem right now, but it will be in the future if MH does not increase its fleet size.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
While I appreciate that arriving at KUL in the dead hours is no fun for passengers aboard the current MH140, would introducing a stop to what is currently a nonstop service be more well-received?

IMO, most passengers will appreciate arriving at a more decent hour. Passengers arriving at 4/5 am have nothing to do in KUL except taking a nap while waiting for their connecting flight or wait at a hotel a couple of hours before they can check in.

From a passenger's point of view, they get to have a snack/cold meal from SYD-BNE, and then a dinner/supper from BNE-KUL before crashing for the night around 1-2 am when you are dead tired.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
What SQ has done is to forget about overnight flights out of SYD and make the return departing 8.30 the following morning, resulting in an early afternoon arrival back in SIN. Yes indeed, the aircraft sits on the ground at SYD an extra 9-10 hours. But, doing that preserves the regional connectivity at the SIN end.

MH will be better off connecting passengers arriving at 6 am then at 2-3 pm. Flights to Northern/SE Asia/LHR/ARN will benefit from this flight while flights to India will benefit from the early afternoon arrival. Also, the late evening departure from SYD and BNE will also allow MH's new partner in Australia - Virgin Blue to connect to its flights. It will be a lot harder for MH to connect with Virgin Blue's flights if it leaves SYD at 8/9 am.


User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6454 times:

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
trying to get to BNE will further decrease the competitiveness of MH on that route

er.. competition?

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
What SQ has done is to forget about overnight flights out of SYD and make the return departing 8.30

SQ has an extra daily flight so probably diff to compare. If MAS could add another daily then I guess one would depart SYD first thing in the morning too.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 10):
dead hours is no fun for passengers aboard the current MH140,

I have arrived KUL bright and early many times before and noticed lots of very sorry looking (mostly UK-bound) passengers with 'Downtown Duty-Free' bags (ex-SYD I guess) sleeping on benches and floors. Have often assumed they arrived on MH140 and are waiting for MH8 (or worse MH4). Bet they'll be please their stay at KUL will be potentially shortened.


User currently offlineEconojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6366 times:

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 11):
Not really... as far is KUL goes, MH has no competition, so it can probably 'afford' to do it...



Quoting MAS777 (Reply 13):
er.. competition?

For KUL-originating passengers, SQ is a very good way to go to BNE; KUL-SIN-BNE looks as good or even better than KUL-SYD-BNE.
I am also considering the Europe-BNE traffic. For example, getting from OSL to BNE will become a 3-stop affair (OSL-AMS-KUL-SYD-BNE) assuming MH continues to use AMS as its European hub.

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 11):
Yes... that is why TG's overnight SYD-MEL-BKK service has been successful...
better to have a 1.10 transit in a domestic port, and get in at a descent hour.

Perhaps the success came mostly on the strength of the MEL-BKK leg?

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 13):
SQ has an extra daily flight so probably diff to compare. If MAS could add another daily then I guess one would depart SYD first thing in the morning too.

Of the 3 daily SYD-SIN services operated by SQ, not one operates overnight out of SYD. With more nonstop frequencies than MH, SQ would arguably be in a better position to make one of the services one-stop in order to have a morning arrival into SIN. Yet, SQ doesn't.

Quoting OdiE (Reply 12):
That would be how most airlines have scheduled their BNE flights. However, this would also mean that the aircraft is sitting on the ground for a good 6-8 hours. While this may not be a problem right now, but it will be in the future if MH does not increase its fleet size.

The overnight KUL-MEL/SYD with daylight return rotations follow this pattern. I guess MH will have to evaluate if BNE is important enough to deserve this sort of idling time. If not, perhaps BNE may be better served through a connection on DJ out of SYD/MEL.
As for fleet size, what matters is how MH can take advantage of the current fleet surplus to make key routes profitable right now. Otherwise, it makes no commercial sense to continue operating those routes. KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL does really shorten the ground time, but I am concerned that the extra stop on the outbound will weaken the BNE station.

Quoting OdiE (Reply 12):
MH will be better off connecting passengers arriving at 6 am then at 2-3 pm. Flights to Northern/SE Asia/LHR/ARN will benefit from this flight while flights to India will benefit from the early afternoon arrival.

The ARN-EWR timing is being questioned in the other thread. SE Asia should certainly have connections in the afternoon. The major loss of connection would be LHR and China/TPE/NRT (morning departures to HKG/TPE/PVG/PEK/NRT). SQ has a 5PM departure wave to those stations (except NRT) and thus has a good reason to depart SYD the following morning.

So maybe MH really has to have a SYD-originating flight arrive into KUL in the morning around 6.00. Yet, coupling it to BNE could weaken BNE; BNE is not about to go above a single daily frequency anytime soon and my opinion is that the daily needs to be nonstop both ways. Perhaps tagging MEL to SYD again (MH used to do KUL-SYD-MEL-KUL and KUL-MEL-SYD-KUL) might be a lesser evil, since MEL already has nonstops. This time around, if the bilateral allows, MH could route MH140 through MEL so MEL-KUL becomes 3x daily with MH140 more or less wingtipping MH128 out of MEL although MH140 would still primarily be carrying SYD passengers.

Quoting OdiE (Reply 12):
Also, the late evening departure from SYD and BNE will also allow MH's new partner in Australia - Virgin Blue to connect to its flights. It will be a lot harder for MH to connect with Virgin Blue's flights if it leaves SYD at 8/9 am.

Good point. It did also cross my mind. IIRC, MH and DJ specified SYD as a connecting point. Now given the additional scheduling limitation out of SYD (due to the curfew), could they consider using MEL instead or do the infrastructure / DJ's operations at MEL make that much less favorable?


User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3339 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6298 times:

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 14):
For KUL-originating passengers, SQ is a very good way to go to BNE; KUL-SIN-BNE looks as good or even better than KUL-SYD-BNE.

I think SQ makes enough money on KUL-SIN without dropping yields to pick up Australian bound pax.

Also, SQ has double daily services.
8:15a KUL M 7:35p BNE I SQ 103/SQ 245 Via SIN 772/772 9:20
6:50p KUL M 6:50a+1 BNE I SQ 117/SQ 235 Via SIN 772/772 10:00

The proposed service would operate:
9:55a KUL M 7:50p SYD 1 MH 141 Non-stop 772 7:55
21.35 SYD 23.30 BNE

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 14):
I am also considering the Europe-BNE traffic. For example, getting from OSL to BNE will become a 3-stop affair (OSL-AMS-KUL-SYD-BNE) assuming MH continues to use AMS as its European hub.

EK seems to do OK with their 2/3 stoppers via DXB and SIN...

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 14):
Perhaps tagging MEL to SYD again (MH used to do KUL-SYD-MEL-KUL and KUL-MEL-SYD-KUL) might be a lesser evil, since MEL already has nonstops

Why would you do that, when MEL is probably the best of MH's Australian ops, and can fill 2 x B772s..


User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

Quoting OdiE (Reply 12):
2. MH tried that and it wasn't successful. Prior to the route rationalization, MH indeed served FRA daily with B772 (up from 5 weekly B744) for quite a long time. At least they tried serving FRA with a daily B772 before reducing the frequency.

hence perhaps adding a tag on to MAN...

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 14):
Of the 3 daily SYD-SIN services operated by SQ, not one operates overnight out of SYD. With more nonstop frequencies than MH, SQ would arguably be in a better position to make one of the services one-stop in order to have a morning arrival into SIN. Yet, SQ doesn't.

agreed but that would involve having an aircraft on the ground which MH is trying to avoid.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 14):
If not, perhaps BNE may be better served through a connection on DJ out of SYD/MEL.



Quoting Econojetter (Reply 14):
my opinion is that the daily needs to be nonstop both ways

??

The upshot really is MH wants to retain BNE online and in the hope of improving the yields on this route, a simple solution is to tag it to the SYD flight which has a restricted departure time (at SYD) and thus also solves the god-awful arrival time of MH140 at KUL.


oh - on another note - seems my 'post-it' re-MOW seems to have gone through...  Smile - see other post.


User currently offlineEconojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6210 times:

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 15):
I think SQ makes enough money on KUL-SIN without dropping yields to pick up Australian bound pax.

I don't really know what you are trying to say here. If you mean that SQ does not target Australia-bound pax out of KUL, I respectfully disagree.

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 15):
EK seems to do OK with their 2/3 stoppers via DXB and SIN...

EK serves many stations in Europe nonstop from its DXB hub. So Europe-to-BNE on EK would mostly be European city via DXB via SIN (2 stops). MH has far fewer stations in Europe; early in the business turnaround plan, there was talk of retaining only AMS, LHR, CDG and FCO with e.g. AMS as the main connecting point. So MH pax from many European cities would have to go via AMS via KUL (2 stops); if BNE gets linked to SYD in the manner suggested above, those pax would have to go via AMS via KUL via SYD (3 stops).

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 15):
Why would you do that, when MEL is probably the best of MH's Australian ops, and can fill 2 x B772s..

I was suggesting keeping the 2x daily KUL-MEL nonstops and having MH140 also go via MEL on the return for a total of 3x daily MEL (2 nonstops plus 1 one-stop on the eastbound; 3 nonstops on the westbound), if the bilateral allows it.

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 16):
agreed but that would involve having an aircraft on the ground which MH is trying to avoid.

Minimizing ground time is desirable, but certainly not the only thing to consider. SQ would naturally want to minimize ground time as well where scheduling and hub connectivity are not compromised. SYD is an example where SQ is willing to incur additional ground time in order to preserve schedule and connectivity.

Anyway, it may not be wise for MH to schedule a morning departure out of SYD without first ensuring that there will be good onward connection possibilities at KUL in the afternoon.

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 16):
The upshot really is MH wants to retain BNE online and in the hope of improving the yields on this route, a simple solution is to tag it to the SYD flight which has a restricted departure time (at SYD) and thus also solves the god-awful arrival time of MH140 at KUL.

My opinion is that this arrangement, however neat and tidy it might appear, does not do the BNE station much favors, except for the addition of a weekly frequency to make it daily.

To recap my reasons for thinking that the BNE station will suffer as a result of this new arrangement:
- BNE will no longer have any nonstops on the eastbound
- the westbound return will arrive into KUL in the early morning, while most European departures, including the important AMS flights, take place near midnight


User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6082 times:

Further clarification of this reshuffle may appear soon as DJ may also offer a code-shared late morning connection ex-BNE into Sydney for passengers to transit on to MH arriving KUL at 2030hrs.  Wink

User currently offline6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3339 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6075 times:

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 17):
If you mean that SQ does not target Australia-bound pax out of KUL, I respectfully disagree.

Really? Well my data shows that SQ carriers less than 15% of all traffic between Malaysia and Australia. So when you consider that MH is about 80% of all traffic and no one else serves the sector on a non-stop basis, I hardly think this is a major challenge.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 17):
I was suggesting keeping the 2x daily KUL-MEL nonstops and having MH140 also go via MEL on the return for a total of 3x daily MEL (2 nonstops plus 1 one-stop on the eastbound; 3 nonstops on the westbound), if the bilateral allows it.

This makes it even messier IMO.
If anything, MH should consider a morning departure ex-MEL/SYD, arriving KUL around 16.00 to provide westbound feed from Australia to India.

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 18):
Further clarification of this reshuffle may appear soon as DJ may also offer a code-shared late morning connection ex-BNE into Sydney for passengers to transit on to MH arriving KUL at 2030hrs.

Makes perfect sense to me.
Double daily ex-BNE. 7 x MH, 7 x codeshare over SYD
Double daily MH at SYD
Double daily MH at MEL
4 x MH at ADL, plus daily midnight via MEL, and 3 x afternoon via MEL with DJ.


User currently offlineEconojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6028 times:

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 19):
Really? Well my data shows that SQ carriers less than 15% of all traffic between Malaysia and Australia. So when you consider that MH is about 80% of all traffic and no one else serves the sector on a non-stop basis, I hardly think this is a major challenge.

I have a few questions about your data:

1. I assume you are talking about the O&D traffic between Malaysia and Australia. But I still want to verify if the source of the data did specifically exclude the international connecting pax e.g. LHR-KUL-SYD passengers in this calculation?

2. How recent is this data?

3. MH may have carried 80% of the traffic, but at what yield? Is MH able to command a significant fare premium over SQ in this market and maintain this market share?

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 19):
This makes it even messier IMO.
If anything, MH should consider a morning departure ex-MEL/SYD, arriving KUL around 16.00 to provide westbound feed from Australia to India.

What MH lacks is an afternoon connection at KUL to destinations like TPE, PVG and PEK. SQ has these in addition to the India connections. Nevertheless, if MH can successfully launch and sustain a 3rd frequency to SYD or MEL, I agree that a westbound morning departure would be appropriate.

My idea was that MEL continue to have 2x daily dedicated service:
MH129 daylight eastbound returning as MH128 overnight westbound
MH149 overnight eastbound returning as MH148 daylight (afternoon) westbound

MH140, even if it gets routed SYD-MEL-KUL, will primarily be an ex-SYD service and thus hopefully be mostly filled up when it departs SYD.

If MH140 does not fill up easily out of SYD, then MH could consider using it to also pick up MEL-originating pax (who currently fly MH128). Then the aircraft flying MH129 KUL-MEL nonstop might park at MEL for the night and return as MH128 the following morning, giving MH the morning departure ex-MEL.


User currently offlineOdiE From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1641 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5815 times:

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 17):
I was suggesting keeping the 2x daily KUL-MEL nonstops and having MH140 also go via MEL on the return for a total of 3x daily MEL (2 nonstops plus 1 one-stop on the eastbound; 3 nonstops on the westbound), if the bilateral allows it.

That would just mean that MH 140 and MH 148 will fly within an hour of each other (you have mentioned earlier). Why not route it through BNE instead and maybe sometime in the future, have a red-eye ex-KUL when there is sufficient demand for double daily BNE services.

A separate KUL-SYD-KUL (morning outbound from SYD) and a KUL-BNE-KUL would require additional (approximately) 1.4 airframe compared to a KUL-SYD-BNE-KUL triangle route.

Quoting Econojetter (Reply 20):
If MH140 does not fill up easily out of SYD, then MH could consider using it to also pick up MEL-originating pax (who currently fly MH128). Then the aircraft flying MH129 KUL-MEL nonstop might park at MEL for the night and return as MH128 the following morning, giving MH the morning departure ex-MEL.

I think that's a viable option, except that BNE is the one doesn't need a turnaround service while traffic to MEL justifies for a turnaround service. MH 140 will then be filled with passengers from both MEL and SYD - probably the 2 busiest stations in Australia.


User currently offlineEconojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5772 times:

Quoting OdiE (Reply 21):
That would just mean that MH 140 and MH 148 will fly within an hour of each other (you have mentioned earlier). Why not route it through BNE instead and maybe sometime in the future, have a red-eye ex-KUL when there is sufficient demand for double daily BNE services.

BNE is no doubt a weaker station than MEL or SYD. My point is that giving BNE an intermediate stop on the outbound is going to reduce its appeal in the near term such that the weakening will continue; that way, it is never going to see the day where there is sufficient demand for a double daily. I think that, if this route is worth operating in the long term, the airline needs to serve it well (and be prepared to dedicate the necessary additional airframe). Otherwise, it might as well be dropped from MH mainline and served entirely through a codeshare via SYD or MEL.

Quoting OdiE (Reply 21):
I think that's a viable option, except that BNE is the one doesn't need a turnaround service while traffic to MEL justifies for a turnaround service. MH 140 will then be filled with passengers from both MEL and SYD - probably the 2 busiest stations in Australia.

Since MH140 may need to remain an overnight and thus need to stop over somewhere in order to land at a reasonable hour in KUL, and since I think it might be wise to avoid further marginalizing BNE if the airline still wants to serve it in the long run, I suggested MEL as the stopover point. This is because having MH140 stop in MEL on the way from SYD does not jeopardize the MEL station, even if MH140 and MH128 depart within minutes of each other. Most of the seats on MH140 should be sold to SYD pax and most of the MEL pax will still take MH128.

However, if MH wants to try having MH128 leave MEL the following morning, MH140 will need more capacity (e.g. capacity upgrade from the current B772 to a B744) because it will serve as the overnight westbound for both SYD and MEL. MH140 is probably going to be bursting at the seams fairly often even with B744 capacity, so MH might want to yield control it, especially out of MEL, to prioritize higher yield (e.g. O&D) and move some lower yield pax to the morning flight. Also, in the case of a morning MH128 departure ex-MEL, it might depart late enough in the morning to capture connecting traffic from an incoming DJ flight from SYD, thus also giving SYD-originating pax a morning option, albeit with one extra connection at MEL.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Malaysia Airlines BKK To Klia PLanes posted Mon Sep 12 2005 11:06:42 by Chrisjdurber
Malaysia Airlines' B744s To EWR And ARN! posted Mon Jan 17 2005 06:10:50 by Odie
Malaysia Airlines Plans To Buy 39 New Jets posted Wed Nov 3 2004 12:48:38 by Kalakaua
Malaysia Airlines - Way To Go! posted Sat Mar 30 2002 03:22:53 by 9V-SPK
Malaysia Airlines Cargo To Mauritius posted Tue Mar 19 2002 21:40:32 by Airmale
International Airlines That Do BNE-SYD posted Sat Nov 24 2001 08:45:24 by Braniff Place
Malaysia Airlines Increases Services To Adelaide posted Wed May 21 2003 09:50:28 by Positive rate
Malaysia Airlines To SYD posted Sun May 13 2001 04:35:08 by 747buff
Malaysia Airlines To Resume Flights To Beirut posted Wed Oct 4 2006 10:49:19 by BA
Travelling To India With Malaysia Airlines posted Sun Aug 6 2006 10:51:27 by Jumbo747
Malaysia Airlines: NO To Open Skies posted Thu Oct 25 2007 09:58:04 by USADreamliner
Malaysia Airlines Wants To Become A 5 Star LCC?!? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 02:46:07 by SQ452
Malaysia Airlines BKK To Klia PLanes posted Mon Sep 12 2005 11:06:42 by Chrisjdurber
Malaysia Airlines' B744s To EWR And ARN! posted Mon Jan 17 2005 06:10:50 by Odie
Malaysia Airlines Plans To Buy 39 New Jets posted Wed Nov 3 2004 12:48:38 by Kalakaua
Malaysia Airlines - Way To Go! posted Sat Mar 30 2002 03:22:53 by 9V-SPK
Malaysia Airlines Cargo To Mauritius posted Tue Mar 19 2002 21:40:32 by Airmale
International Airlines That Do BNE-SYD posted Sat Nov 24 2001 08:45:24 by Braniff Place
TG Changes To SYD-BNE posted Wed Feb 21 2007 04:07:00 by 6thfreedom
Malaysia Airlines Increases Services To Adelaide posted Wed May 21 2003 09:50:28 by Positive rate