Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Malaysian Airlines Adjust US Service  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24878 posts, RR: 46
Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9563 times:

Struggling Malaysian Airlines for the summer 2012 season will adjust its sole US services to operate via Tokyo Narita instead of the long time Taipei stop.

Some might remember that Tokyo used to be one of the original stops on the way to Los Angeles when Malaysian launched trans Pacific services in 1980s.


Effective March 25, 2012

Mon/Wed/Fri/Sun
MH092 KUL-NRT 1100-1910 772
MH092 NRT-LAX 2040-1510 772

MH093 LAX-NRT 1715-2030+1 772
MH093 NRT-KUL 2205-0430+2 772


New schedule avail in GDS.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9542 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):

Do you think this is a strong move for them? A lot more competition via NRT.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24878 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9475 times:

Frankly what I think they are doing is consolidating their network – so they can route LA over existing Tokyo services. Maybe help improve both.

I see that KUL-TPE becomes simply a daily 738 market after this.


But you are right – LAX-NRT is much more crowded with 7 airlines (AA, DL, JL, KE, NH, SQ, UA) already versus LAX-TPE with 2. I’m sure MH will most likely become the consolidator favorite on the route with bargain basement fares, so I doubt they will make much money on the switch.

I also dont know why they don't plan to do something with AA now that they are entering OW.
The LAX timings are pretty terrible and wont allow for much more than Western US connections. If they had a traditional LAX morning arrival they could atleast connect onto AA’s before noon Central US/ East Coast activity.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6207 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9388 times:

Not only are the times terrible but this is a less than daily service. The reason they don't drop LAX altogether is for prestige reasons, how profitable can this long thin route be. Hard to imagine that at one point they tried to make EWR work.

Regards,

Chepos



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24878 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9072 times:

Here is a news story about the LAX change, and some other network adjustments.

Funny they push the change as "great news" and highlight the 33% frequency increase going from 3 to 4x weekly in LA.   

link:
http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/01...l-long-haul-network-from-march-25/

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDellatorre From Brazil, joined May 2000, 1088 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9049 times:

I don't give LAX service two years to be chopped!

User currently offlineXA744 From Mexico, joined Mar 2004, 734 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8832 times:

Quoting chepos (Reply 3):
Not only are the times terrible but this is a less than daily service

Sad to see how much the airline has downsized...

LAX, at some point in history, used to be 10 X for MAS...those were the good old days !!!


Best regards



No matter how you fly...just never get your wings clipped !
User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 882 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8708 times:

Although there's no timetable for its passage, Taiwan is in fast-track position in the Visa Waiver Program for the U.S., the only country currently in the "nominated" category. The timing for Malaysian moving out may not be the most well-timed. An increase in Taiwan-US passengers is likely given the upgrade in status.

Still, the re-routing through Narita may be short-lived; I have to agree with Dellatorre:

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 5):
I don't give LAX service two years to be chopped!

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
LAX-NRT is much more crowded with 7 airlines (AA, DL, JL, KE, NH, SQ, UA) already versus LAX-TPE with 2.

7 competitors? That will be a bloodbath!

SQ and NH will do well in the premium cabin, so I do not worry for them.
KE seems to be a favorite for 'discount premium,' so they fill that niche.

So MH is going to compete with DL (who has a small hub), JL (local business contracts), UA (small hub too), and AA (strong US side connections) for the remainder?

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 5):
I don't give LAX service two years to be chopped!

I doubt they'll survive long enough for Skymark to acquire their first A380s (2014); certainly not until Skymark has enough A380s to fly to LAX (2018?).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinevheca From Australia, joined May 2007, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8555 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Some might remember that Tokyo used to be one of the original stops on the way to Los Angeles when Malaysian launched trans Pacific services in 1980s.
Quoting XA744 (Reply 6):
Sad to see how much the airline has downsized...

LAX, at some point in history, used to be 10 X for MAS...those were the good old days !!!




I remember these flights as kids with the DC-10 and 747!

Sad to see this great carrier struggle...Used to love flying them!

Cheers

Vheca



Types Flown on - 312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,742,743,74C,752,762,AB4,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2946 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8199 times:

At least MAS will get a little more fleet utilization out of this schedule and less parking fees to NRT.
The inbound aircraft on the KUL-NRT overnights at NRT before operating to KUL to following day.
Other carriers in SE Asia, typically turnaround at NRT in a couple of hours.


User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6138 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XA744 (Reply 6):
LAX, at some point in history, used to be 10 X for MAS...those were the good old days !!!

Yes. And the Mexican Government was the first to screw them, to protect a now dead airline.



MGGS
User currently offlinevincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8015 times:

Wouldn't LAX-KIX-KUL make sense? No competition, no curfew.

User currently offline777MAS From Malaysia, joined Sep 2003, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7894 times:

Quoting as739x (Reply 1):
Do you think this is a strong move for them? A lot more competition via NRT.

Few people seem to discuss the fact that their FFP is so very limited. They have so FEW airline partners (esp. being not in an alliance until recently), and since a US-Southeast Asia trip has the words MILEAGE RUN written all over it, how many people would fly with them if FFP mileage (and attaining/maintaining elite status) is going to be one of the considerations?

Quoting XA744 (Reply 6):
Sad to see how much the airline has downsized...

It just drives home the point that in global business it's a brutal world out there. The Malaysian government and MH's management apparently are still in the process of figuring that out, and we all know the world isn't going to wait in the meantime...  
Quoting yeogeo (Reply 7):
Taiwan is in fast-track position in the Visa Waiver Program for the U.S.,

The fact that Malaysia isn't on the VWP only serves to highlight that demand for travel to the US from Malaysians themselves isn't going to be fantastic at all. (It's such a costly and demanding process to apply for a US visa) Compare this to Singapore, which is on the VWP.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
So MH is going to compete with DL (who has a small hub), JL (local business contracts), UA (small hub too), and AA (strong US side connections) for the remainder?

It's not just competing with these guys on NRT-LAX and their respective hubs in LAX. Even in Malaysia DL, AA and UA are competing for Malaysia-originating pax - these guys could sell at levels that could be even cheaper than MH. Sure they don't fly to KUL, but the ticket they sell you includes a segment like KUL-SIN or KUL-HKG on another airline. And they have an advantage in that they can sell you a through fare to, say, the East Coast - e.g. EWR, ORD, Orlando, for MYR3699 (UA). With MH, which only flies to LAX, you'd have to fork out a whole lot more to get to your destination beyond LAX.


User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7724 times:

Assuming that Malaysia Airlines does progress with the intention to join OneWorld, it would be good to plan services to the US in co operation with OneWorld partners. All they need to do is fly to good connecting cities - and NRT is one of them. They would operate KUL-NRT as an air bridge, with JAL (JAL might just codeshare on MH flights between Malaysia and Japan, and not operate any of their own services.) Then they feed into the OneWorld hub at NRT and codeshare on JAL or AA services to the USA. They will get access to cities like Dallas, which gives a shorter journey than if MH carries the passenger KUl-NRT-LAX and uses AA for LAX-DFW.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24878 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7158 times:

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 5):
I don't give LAX service two years to be chopped!

Frankly it should probably have been cut at the last near death experience MH had IIRC circa 2008.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
7 competitors? That will be a bloodbath!

Yeah, do you know of any international long-haul market now with 8 airlines !

Quoting vincewy (Reply 12):
Wouldn't LAX-KIX-KUL make sense? No competition, no curfew.

Yeah KIX would atleast be something original, however history would not be on their side to succeed either. Many folks have tried KIX-LAX over the years including 3rd nation airlines like Thai.

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 14):
it would be good to plan services to the US in co operation with OneWorld partners.

   Yes MH should look to utilize and leverage alliance partnerships the best it can.

For the America's it should work to maximize JAL and Cathay connections imo. Or if it insist on maintaining a LAX link, atleast schedule the flight in a manner which connects well with AA services across the nation, especially to the East Coast.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineplanereality From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6820 times:

After a quick glance, MH fares look to be almost double some of the others mentioned for the LAX-NRT portion for late spring 2012


Andiamo!
User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 11):
Yes. And the Mexican Government was the first to screw them, to protect a now dead airline.

Can you elaborate on this comment? I have no idea what you mean.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5037 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Yeah, do you know of any international long-haul market now with 8 airlines !

"Inconceivable" is really the only word that comes to mind. I'm aware of short haul markets that (once) had that level of competition. With any market, the rule is "don't be #3." How the heck does one compete at a frequency that will doom them to 8th place?

I'm only vaguely familiar with the NRT-LAX market, but here is my further perception of 'who owns what niche:'
NH: Does very well with premium and business travel.
DL: Has their NRT hub and fligths to multiple US hubs. Historical presence in Japan with US companies/US government contracts.
AA/JL: They have the oneworld alliance as well as JL's local contracts
UA: Small NRT feed as well as a strong historical presence in Japan with US companies/US government plus *A.
KE: It is my understanding they've done well NRT-LAX as a low cost vendor. I assume they have changed strategies with the A380? (I'm asking as I do not know.)
SQ: Also has a premium niche. They seem well liked on the LAX side of the flight...

I'm just not seeing *any* niche for MH left open.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

lots of negative thoughts here but i can see that moving the Transpac route to operate via NRT does have some benefits.

MH92/93 is likely to operate with JL and AA flight numbers once integrated into Oneworld so these flights could yield a little more than currently operating via TPE which has always been a low-yield market for MH (between TPE-LAX).

What hasn't been finalised yet is whether this would also see an increase in KUL-NRT flights overall - which again would help improve connections via NRT for other transpacific routes (with JL and AA) across to other US cities.

MH has always used LAX as its primary US port - and will want to stay in the US market for the conceivable future - so i suspect this option is the lesser of two evils (TPE or NRT) and gives it some hope of perhaps even increasing frequencies if performance improves.


User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6138 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 17):
Can you elaborate on this comment? I have no idea what you mean.

When MH started flying to MEX, the route was KUL-TPE or NRT (I can´t recall)-LAX-MEX. The only reason the route worked was because the Mexican authorities gave MH 5th freedom rights on the LAX-MEX-LAX sectors. It was very profitable for them because you could fly an excellent F and C service relativley cheaply as the sector is only slightly more than 3 hrs. Those two classes were always full of Mexicans going / coming to / from LAX on MH F and C.

Since MX couldn´t compete, they complained to the authorities that MH was engaging in poaching and dumping practices and requested that MH´s 5th freedom between MEX and LAX was revoked.

They were, and the route lost its profitability and soon after MH quit flying to MEX altogether.



MGGS
User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6207 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4712 times:

As a side note, completely unrelated to the topic did MH have Spanish speaking crews on the LAX-MEX-LAX runs. It would be interesting to hear Spanish speaking crew members on MAS. I guess the same would go for when EZE was served.
Anyhow in the long run, whether the Mexican govt. would have interfered or not I doubt MEX would have been around today. As you say the sold F and C for cheap, you can easily fill a plane between LAX and MEX but if you are MH I'm sure they were not filling the plane with high yielding pax. KUL-TPE (or NRT for that matter)- LAX-MEX I'm sure was not a huge money maker for MAS. How long did MAS serve MEX for?

Regards,

Chepos



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4656 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
KE: It is my understanding they've done well NRT-LAX as a low cost vendor. I assume they have changed strategies with the A380? (I'm asking as I do not know.)

Well, KE uses the A380 for ICN-JFK and ICN-LAX. I imagine they use 77Es or something for NRT-LAX, so whatever their strategy on the LAX-NRT route is, the A380 joining their fleet is irrelevant for NRT.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 20):
When MH started flying to MEX, the route was KUL-TPE or NRT (I can´t recall)-LAX-MEX.

TPE I think.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6138 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chepos (Reply 21):
As you say the sold F and C for cheap, you can easily fill a plane between LAX and MEX but if you are MH I'm sure they were not filling the plane with high yielding pax. KUL-TPE (or NRT for that matter)- LAX-MEX I'm sure was not a huge money maker for MAS. How long did MAS serve MEX for?

I believe they had a couple of cabin crews who spoke Spanish. And while you are right that the KUL-TPE-LAX sectors and return were where the airline made their money, the only reason the Tag on LAX-MEX-LAX worked was because they were able to fill their F and C cabins to the brim with very high yielding passengers. For the sector at least. To the point that, when their 5th freedom rights were taken away, the route became completely unprofitable overnight.

I had friends who took that flight numerous times in C and told me how F and C were full and the rest of the plane was bordering on empty.

I believe their whole MEX adventure lasted close to three years, but I´m not sure. It might have been less.



MGGS
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5232 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4610 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Some might remember that Tokyo used to be one of the original stops on the way to Los Angeles when Malaysian launched trans Pacific services in 1980s.

Unless I'm mistaken, they actually flew both KUL-NRT-LAX and KUL-TPE-LAX for a short while in the early 90's.

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 5):
I don't give LAX service two years to be chopped!

   History suggests otherwise. Look at how they stubbornly held onto KUL-DXB-EWR/KUL-ARN-EWR and KUL-JNB-EZE for years and years despite constant reports that the routes were bleeding money. Each and every time that MH announces the shuttering of some prestige route, someone gets in the way, and the airline magically decides to keep flying the route. The airline seems to have a really strange identity crisis. They seem to want to be SQ, but just haven't figured out how to do that. They probably don't have to fly to LAX, relying instead on new partners CX and JL to funnel passengers to the US, but prestige appears to play a huge role at MH, so I doubt we'll see LAX shuttered any time soon.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
25 HeeseokKoo : This timing is at least better than the current 6pm arrival, 1am departure schedule in LAX for connecting AA flights. Also in NRT, NRT-KUL flight mig
26 delimit : I believe KE is a 330 on the LAX - NRT route currently. I am sure it is still profitable for them but honestly I am surprised they still fly it. It's
27 LAXintl : Actually I'd say no. Today you can atleast catch the AA red-eyes (9-10pm) and all the inbound evening arrivals onto the 1am MH departure. With the ch
28 EddieDude : Thanks delimit. I was under the wrong impression they were using 77Es. Are they dropping it altogether or just delinking it from LAX? Someone specula
29 LAXintl : See..
30 carpethead : It was downgauged to the A332 after the 3-11 earthquake, last year. The aircraft size on the route continues to get smaller, as once upon a time they
31 777MAS : Yes, they did. That was around 1995.
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...
US Airlines New Transatlantic Service In 2008? posted Sun Sep 9 2007 22:11:25 by PHX Flyer
US Airlines' Lack Of Service posted Sun Apr 14 2002 07:15:58 by Blink182
Aerolineas MAS (Dominican Rep) Plans US Service posted Wed Dec 7 2011 10:19:46 by LAXintl
Airlines With Previous Service To Washington IAD posted Fri Nov 25 2011 16:51:14 by virginvsbritish
Tiara Air (Aruba) Applies For US Service posted Tue Nov 22 2011 09:00:46 by LAXintl
Silk Way Cargo Plan US Service posted Thu Oct 6 2011 18:29:13 by 777way
Universal Airlines - The US Charter Airline posted Mon Aug 30 2010 23:34:01 by Jackbr
Is The New Ozark Airlines Still In Service? posted Thu Aug 5 2010 21:20:09 by B777UA
Turkish Airlines Announces LAX Service posted Wed Jul 21 2010 17:20:34 by LAXintl
Hong Kong Airlines Launches Moscow Service posted Thu Mar 11 2010 03:34:57 by kevin