Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:20 am

Malaysia Airlines today announced a full year 2013 loss of 1.17 billion ringgit (~$355USD) and warns of continued difficult times ahead as its earlier announced plans to break even in 2014 have been dashed.

The carrier says it faced increasing competition both locally from LCCs like Air Asia and in the long haul arena to Middle East and Europe which has seen yields plummet.

However in the midst of this the carrier says it will continue to focus on cutting costs and building traffic and revenue and seeks to further modernize its fleet.

As part of refleeting carrier says its awaiting government approval for up to 100 aircraft orders from Airbus and Boeing. Sources say the order would include around 30 widebodies compromised of A333 and A350-900s to replace older A333 and 772's, along with likely 737MAX order to boost its shorthaul regional fleet.
Source also says the carrier has passed on idea of acquiring additional A380's instead placing priority on twin-engine widebodies.


Story:
Malaysia Airlines posts 4Q loss, sees tough times ahead
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11205162
and
Malaysia Airlines plans aircraft orders as part of turnaround plan
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...sia-airlines-idUSL3N0LO0K020140219

=


Amazing how inefficient MAS continues to limp along while the government apparently happily pumps more money in, all this while private Air Asia flourishes.
Seemingly one turn around plan after another have gone up in flames the last decade.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
fiscal
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:47 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:45 am

That is sad, as I think MAS have put together a nice package, and should be patronized better. I would, and have traveled with them quite a bit this past few years, and they have never disappointed.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:48 am

Aren't people posting that they are going to order more A380s, in the Turkish wet-lease thread?
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4886
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:11 am

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
carrier says it faced increasing competition both locally from LCCs like Air Asia and in the long haul arena to Middle East and Europe which has seen yields plummet.

And they are surprised by this?

As article mentions MH had a massive 17% capacity jump in 2013. Of course yields will plummet when you have things like A380 to fill overnight along with additional capacity regionally as Air Asia CEO virtually declared war on MH.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
As part of refleeting carrier says its awaiting government approval for up to 100 aircraft

And how does getting 100 new (and costly) aircraft help reverse the 1.17 billion ringgit loss? If anything probably adds to the loss..

     

[Edited 2014-02-18 22:16:38]
mercure f-wtcc
 
tyler81190
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:28 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:26 am

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
And how does getting 100 new (and costly) aircraft help reverse the 1.17 billion ringgit loss? If anything probably adds to the loss..

It helps when the government is writing the check...
 
airpearl
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 7:42 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:32 am

just a minor correction

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
1.17 billion ringgit (~$355USD)

~US$355 million

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Amazing how inefficient MAS continues to limp along while the government apparently happily pumps more money in,

About US$1bn in Malaysian taxpayers' money was pumped into MH last year and at the rate they're burning it up, the airline will need another bail-out in a year's time. Boy, I sure love it when my money is well spent.
 
rlwynn
Posts: 1508
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 3:35 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:10 am

Quoting airpearl (Reply 5):
About US$1bn in Malaysian taxpayers' money was pumped into MH last year and at the rate they're burning it up, the airline will need another bail-out in a year's time. Boy, I sure love it when my money is well spent.

That is how it works when a country owns an airline.

Would you rather see them gone?
I can drive faster than you
 
airpearl
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 7:42 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:59 am

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 6):
That is how it works when a country owns an airline.

Would you rather see them gone?

It'll be sad, but I think the money can be better spent elsewhere. MH comes with many legacy problems that even a "privatisation" would not solve because (1) of the tendency of the government to sell state-linked companies to cronies who are more interested in milking it for contracts, and (2) the government is likely to maintain a key shareholding in the company which means that taxpayers are always there as a safety net if (or rather when) things turn for the worse, and the airline is bailed out once again.

So in short, yes, I think the airline should go. But reality, we are likely to see another "privatisation" per the above, which only means prolonging the pain.
 
jtnstar
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:01 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:16 am

The problem is, when is MH going to place an order for these aircrafts? Perhaps during the Farnborough Air Show in July?

It is also romoured that MH may be ordering Boeing 787-10s or A350-1000s for deliveries post 2020. But isn't the A350-900 quite similar to the 787-10 in terms of size and capacity (the former is bigger and has more range)? So I think the A350-1000 is a more likely candidate.

Is it true that MH is going to stop ordering Boeing wide-body aircrafts?
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:38 am

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
As article mentions MH had a massive 17% capacity jump in 2013. Of course yields will plummet when you have things like A380 to fill overnight along with additional capacity regionally as Air Asia CEO virtually declared war on MH.

It's the lo-cos eating MH's regional lunch which is causing the problem.

Sorry, the A380 isn't to blame, however much some would like it to be.

Rgds
Flying around India
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:24 pm

Quoting jtnstar (Reply 9):
But isn't the A350-900 quite similar to the 787-10 in terms of size and capacity (the former is bigger and has more range)?

I believe the 787-10 is slightly larger (in terms of capacity) than the A359, but they are similar.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 10):
It's the lo-cos eating MH's regional lunch which is causing the problem.

Everyone is eating their lunch, regional and long haul. There was one point several years ago where they admitted their entire long haul network lost money, but I do not know if that is still the case after they significantly cut it down. Honestly I don't think anything can really save MH at this point. They are stuck between a rock (Air Asia) and a hard place (the ME3, better, more efficient Asian carriers such as SQ).

[Edited 2014-02-19 05:27:08]
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:50 pm

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 10):
Sorry, the A380 isn't to blame, however much some would like it to be.

Indeed. But blaming the A380 is so easy to do. Even if all facts contradict the issue.

The financial problems of MH are not A380-related, period. But it is good to see them planning on a further fleet renewal.  .
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:25 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 10):
Sorry, the A380 isn't to blame, however much some would like it to be.

Indeed. But blaming the A380 is so easy to do. Even if all facts contradict the issue.

The financial problems of MH are not A380-related, period. But it is good to see them planning on a further fleet renewal.  .

Which facts from MH contradict that the 380 is not contributing to their problems ?

I'm not saying they are, but you seem so sure that they are not that I assume you have proof of this ?   
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:36 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 13):
Which facts from MH contradict that the 380 is not contributing to their problems ?

From this thread: RUMOR: Turkish Airlines To Wet-lease A380s (by KarelXWB Feb 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 50):
According to CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya last year, their A380s have high load factors and have a high utilization.

Underlined with this 8 months old news report.

http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/B...mbos-set-to-assist-its-turnaround/

[Edited 2014-02-19 06:39:26]
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:46 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 13):
Which facts from MH contradict that the 380 is not contributing to their problems ?

From this thread: RUMOR: Turkish Airlines To Wet-lease A380s (by KarelXWB Feb 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 50):
According to CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya last year, their A380s have high load factors and have a high utilization.

Underlined with this 8 months old news report.

http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/B...mbos-set-to-assist-its-turnaround/

They only talk about load factors, not yield and the need for more fuel efficient aircraft. The article was also expecting MH to break even this year, that hasn't exactly happened either.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:50 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 15):
hey only talk about load factors, not yield

Of course it does. Would you have expected anything else?

No airline will state how much money they are making or losing per aircraft type. But with very healthy load factors the yields must be OK at least. Otherwise there is no point in flying a specific airliner with a specific configuration of seats.

So that is basis enough for the fact that the A380 is not causing the financial negatives MH is still in. Unless they bought them at 0% discount prices, then I can understand them not making profits with their A380's.  
 
na
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:50 pm

I guess it costs a lot to park a number of 744s which are just around 15 years old and still could earn money for some years if managed the right way.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18251
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:00 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 16):
No airline will state how much money they are making or losing per aircraft type. But with very healthy load factors the yields must be OK at least. Otherwise there is no point in flying a specific airliner with a specific configuration of seats.

You are assuming a LOT for a state owned carrier that has been historically very poorly run.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
Indeed. But blaming the A380 is so easy to do. Even if all facts contradict the issue.
Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 13):
Which facts from MH contradict that the 380 is not contributing to their problems ?

I think it's safe to say that *everything* is the problem, including the 380s.
I don't take responsibility at all
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:04 pm

I read a while back sometime ago that they (MH) were POSSIBLY interested in the 777x program. Has anyone else heard the same?
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:07 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 16):

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 15):
hey only talk about load factors, not yield

Of course it does. Would you have expected anything else?

No airline will state how much money they are making or losing per aircraft type. But with very healthy load factors the yields must be OK at least. Otherwise there is no point in flying a specific airliner with a specific configuration of seats.

So that is basis enough for the fact that the A380 is not causing the financial negatives MH is still in. Unless they bought them at 0% discount prices, then I can understand them not making profits with their A380's.  

Guess we'll have to take your word for it. The reports of deep discounting to fill seats by other airlines to fill their aircraft mustn't extend to MH either then. I just don't understand your assumption that if they operate their 380's with load factors of 80% the yields must be OK, but this doesn't extend to other aircraft types, at least that seems to be what you are insinuating ?

QF have a system wide load factor of around 80 % yet they are losing money at the moment and take a hammering on international except for the U.S, I suppose that has nothing to do with operating 380's either though.   
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:21 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
I think it's safe to say that *everything* is the problem, including the 380s.

Maybe, maybe not.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 20):
Guess we'll have to take your word for it.

That would be nice. But how likely is it that such load factors woud lead to financial problems? And it is imho a much more balanced view then statements like these:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
Of course yields will plummet when you have things like A380 to fill overnight

which (partly) blame the A380 for the financial losses. If the A380 contributes to that, and that is a VERY BIG IF, it will be adding to the losses for less then 5%. And that is the absolute maximum I could believe. But based on the numbers I still believe, and with good reasons, that they operate the A380 on a profitable bases.

[Edited 2014-02-19 07:30:13]
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:42 pm

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
As article mentions MH had a massive 17% capacity jump in 2013. Of course yields will plummet when you have things like A380 to fill overnight along with additional capacity regionally as Air Asia CEO virtually declared war on MH.

EPA001, the selective quoting you chose isn't helping your argument. Though I don't agree with singling out the 380 in the above quote, which doesn't take into account the retirement of the MH 744 fleet and the increase in flying was mainly regional. Though the increase in seats between the 380 and the 744 is significant, direct operating costs per flight are likely similar, the bigger impact the 380 would have is the added ownership costs over the 744.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
That would be nice.

Sorry, not going to happen without cold hard facts  
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:47 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 23):
Sorry, not going to happen without cold hard facts  

But can you name airlines who go public with the revenue numbers per aircraft type? Because in that case you know you are never going to get such numbers, and that makes the argument pointless.

I stick to my claim/conviction, with these load factors MH is not making losses on the A380-operations. Cold hard facts or not, the load-factors are telling enough. Unless one does not want to believe, but that is a different matter.......
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:23 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 24):
But can you name airlines who go public with the revenue numbers per aircraft type? Because in that case you know you are never going to get such numbers, and that makes the argument pointless.

I stick to my claim/conviction, with these load factors MH is not making losses on the A380-operations. Cold hard facts or not, the load-factors are telling enough. Unless one does not want to believe, but that is a different matter.......

No, but I would be willing to bet that if the 380 had been a profit making aircraft for MH, they would've singled it out as such and hailed their flagship.

Nothing to do with not wanting to believe, but having said that, the reverse could be said of having blind faith that every operator will make money with their 380's, of course, that is also a different matter....
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:25 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 25):
the reverse could be said of having blind faith that every operator will make money with their 380's

Maybe so. But that argument you will not hear from me. And is especially on A-net a minority opinion.  .
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:30 pm

Oldest rule in airlines. Load factors dont mean profits. Its all up to the composition of revenue.

If you look at LF, you would think MH would be mad to drop LAX with 86.1% LF in 2013 and a route they have operated for nearly 30-years. But now with the cut, the reality came out that the market had been loss making going on a decade and for whatever reason it continued to still be run.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:31 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 26):
Maybe so. But that argument you will not hear from me. And is especially on A-net a minority opinion.  .

Really !! Would never have guessed  

I'm, not going to bash it and not going to sing it's praises either, but I will say it's not suited to every carrier who has it now, while there a couple who could make use of it.
 
ETinCaribe
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:57 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:21 pm

The article mentions: "a declining ringgit, unrealized foreign exchange losses and higher operating and finance costs" as the reasons for the heavy loss. Looking at some of the numbers, they say rev and oper. costs were both up 10% so a wash but overall cost was up 13.8%. Not sure what the proportion of the operating and non-oper. costs are though.

Quoting na (Reply 17):
I guess it costs a lot to park a number of 744s which are just around 15 years old and still could earn money for some years if managed the right way.

I only see 2x 747 in the fleet database on planespotters, are there more?

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 25):
No, but I would be willing to bet that if the 380 had been a profit making aircraft for MH, they would've singled it out as such and hailed their flagship.

True, while there is an urge to blame the A380, perhaps they say that capacity was up 17% and pax up 27%, so it looks like loads are not too bad and yes, like others have said, that does not mean profit. However, they have to look at multi-year projections. Maybe I am looking at this wrongly or too simplistically.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
And how does getting 100 new (and costly) aircraft help reverse the 1.17 billion ringgit loss? If anything probably adds to the loss..

Chicken and egg problem me thinks. You need efficient, attractive product (they are 5-star rated by Skytrax, I know that is not well though of here but still) to get pax that will get you good yield. Plus, their 777s and some of the 737s are old and in need of refresh.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:34 pm

It seems that people with an agenda takes every oppurtunity to have a go at A380 operators. Im sorry the plane is here, its the king of the sky and airlines and customers love it. itll stay around. Live with it.

What is MH problem. First, their staff levels are ridiculous. Every connected malay can get a job for their niece and nephew thats just returned from a sponsored education in an English speaking country and a introductory salary few KL people can dream of.
I know (from the horses mouth) that when idris jala took over he and his people (which includes alot of good malays since MH is mainly a bumiputera tool) realised there were quite a lot of staff, in positions with fancy titles that did nothing except be absent. The layers of middle management that's not needed was so great that what at other airlines one person handled MH needed 6 middle managers. there is a reason Firefly was quickly established to handle at first Penang. the costs to do it internally would have been huge and the office politics would have ensured all the wrong decisions and people would have been involved.

Staffing levels, salaries, fixed costs (ie overseas apartments, housing and other unnecessary posts) are higher than at virtually any other airline. MH sold its 6 apartments in central London (that different directors sons/daughters had resided in for free when studying in London) but now its said that they have bought new ones. Its absurd.

Add on Malindo introducing competition everywhere and undercutting Air Asias prices plus providing meals etc on flights in and from Malaysia and its not easy to be MH. yields are under pressure on domestic, regional and longhaul flights.

So instead of focusing on a plane to suit your agendas, focus on the facts, inefficiency and increased low cost competition is bleeding MH dry. The one thing that they have and that they use to their advantage is the A380 on their LHR route. Its a success.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
User avatar
9MMPQ
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:26 pm

Quoting ETinCaribe (Reply 29):
I only see 2x 747 in the fleet database on planespotters, are there more?

Still 5 on hand and one of those is currently being reactivated. It will be a back-up while the A380s go for their wing fixes one by one.

Rather then focusing on just the A380 here is something else to consider, load factors were under pressure while their slice of the cake was & continues to be under attack on both the domestic & international front while capacity continued to grow. Fares have shown the trend, they are chasing load factors at the expense of yields.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 30):
What is MH problem. First....

   and so many things continue to drag them down. Why not also research the arrangements with their catering provider, you'll be surprised and get the picture even more. Overall it's business as usual.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:38 pm

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 30):
It seems that people with an agenda takes every oppurtunity to have a go at A380 operators. Im sorry the plane is here, its the king of the sky and airlines and customers love it. itll stay around. Live with it.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 30):
So instead of focusing on a plane to suit your agendas, focus on the facts, inefficiency and increased low cost competition is bleeding MH dry. The one thing that they have and that they use to their advantage is the A380 on their LHR route. Its a success.

I'm not sure who you are directing those comments at, but if it's meant to be me.......

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 28):
I'm, not going to bash it and not going to sing it's praises either, but I will say it's not suited to every carrier who has it now, while there a couple who could make use of it.


The points about the competition and the added burden of costs associated with MH all contribute to the poor results, no questioning that at all. However, to blindly claim that the services operated by the 380 are profitable in a sea of red ink, without hard proof, is wishful thinking. I can't prove their not profitable either, but I stand by my assumption that if the 380 services were profitable, MH would have mentioned it, simply to justify their existence in the fleet.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:50 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 32):
The points about the competition and the added burden of costs associated with MH all contribute to the poor results, no questioning that at all. However, to blindly claim that the services operated by the 380 are profitable in a sea of red ink, without hard proof, is wishful thinking. I can't prove their not profitable either, but I stand by my assumption that if the 380 services were profitable, MH would have mentioned it, simply to justify their existence in the fleet.

I think all of you are missing the bigger picture for MH in this thread. The fact is that over the past 2 to 3 years the performance of MH has improved dramatically. They have:

1. Cut a substantial amount of unprofitable long haul flying including retiring a bunch of aircraft including 744's, 772's, A333, A332 and 734's;
2. Substantially modernised their fleet with new A333's and 738's along with significantly improving their in-flight hard and soft products;
3. Substantially increased aircraft utilisation;
4. Taken the fight to AirAsia in the Malaysian market.

So they are in a significantly better position now then they ever have been in before with significantly less Government intereference in their operations. But like the rest of the Southeast Asian Carriers, MH has been effected by:

1. Over-capacity in key markets - just look at what has happened to yields between Southeast Asia and Australia as an example. Everybody is hurting including the LCC;s
2. An aggressive build out of capacity and discounting to build market share. Now that they have the pax, MH needs to focus on bringing yields up and maximising the use of the KUL hub;

Lets not also forget that MH has only just gotten rid of the last of their unprofitable long haul routes including LAX so this years results should show an improvement just from that.

But this is hardly doom and gloom times for MH. They're in much better shape than they have ever been in before but what is needed now is more revenue and higher yields from what they're doing. That is a problem for every Southeast Asian carrier at the moment, not just for MH so I'm not sure what they can do in that department other than hoping that the LCC's moderate their capacity growth like Tiger Mandala has just done.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:07 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 33):

Agree with you entirely.

However, I'm just tired of the blind claims that the 380 is the be all and end all. Great aircraft sure, but it's not suited to every carrier that has bought it.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4886
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:31 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 33):
I think all of you are missing the bigger picture for MH in this thread. The fact is that over the past 2 to 3 years the performance of MH has improved dramatically

It has ?

MH annual results.

2013 - LOSS - 1.17 Billion ringgit
2012 - LOSS - 433 million ringgit
2011 - LOSS - 1.28 Billion ringgit
2010 - PROFIT - 225 million ringgit
2009 - PROFIT - 493 million ringgit

Seems things have gotten worse!
mercure f-wtcc
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:50 am

Personally I think MAS really shot themselves in the foot by growing capacity at such massive scale.

Even very profitable LCCs barely grow that fast annually, and only comparison might be the ME3 and TK, but those nations and carriers enjoy quite different economic realities.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:12 am

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 35):
It has ?

MH annual results

I said performance, not profit.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
Personally I think MAS really shot themselves in the foot by growing capacity at such massive scale.

Even very profitable LCCs barely grow that fast annually, and only comparison might be the ME3 and TK, but those nations and carriers enjoy quite different economic realities.

I disagree. The fact that MH has had such a large volume increase is testament to the demand but MH now needs to do is make a profit out of it.MH needed to do some catchup in terms of building out its network and frequencies and don't forget that the majority of this capacity increase has been done by the 738 fleet in their regional/short haul network. They needed to catchup to AirAsia and they have done a faily decent job of it while the Government has largely not impeded them as they have in the past.

All in all, it's not a bad result if MH can now work on maximising yields.

Can I also point out that at the EBITDA level MH was profitable for the full year.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4886
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:00 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 37):
I said performance, not profit.

In business performance tends be measured at the end of the day at the balance sheet. MH went from a bad year into an even worse one. And according to guidance 2014 wont be pretty either.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 37):
The fact that MH has had such a large volume increase is testament to the demand but MH now needs to do is make a profit out of it.

Demand is easy. Lower fares enough you can stimulate amazingly. LCCs thought us this well.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 37):
They needed to catchup to AirAsia a

That's like saying BA needs to catch up to Ryanair.
Cant be done, and will be a blood bath if they are foolish enough to go head to head with their high cost base versus lean Air Asia.
mercure f-wtcc
 
TreeHillRavens
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:01 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:09 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 11):
Everyone is eating their lunch, regional and long haul.

  

Quoting Polot (Reply 11):
There was one point several years ago where they admitted their entire long haul network lost money,

True. About 10 years ago, MAS admitted that they would still be losing money on a 100% loaded LHR flight because yield sucked.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 15):
The article was also expecting MH to break even this year, that hasn't exactly happened either.

It was reported two years ago that MAS was looking to buy an airline in SEA. MAS made money that year, by the way   

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
The financial problems of MH are not A380-related, period.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 24):
I stick to my claim/conviction, with these load factors MH is not making losses on the A380-operations.

Then how about their LAX operation ? EZE ?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 27):
If you look at LF, you would think MH would be mad to drop LAX with 86.1% LF in 2013 and a route they have operated for nearly 30-years. But now with the cut, the reality came out that the market had been loss making going on a decade and for whatever reason it continued to still be run.

It was also reported the LF to EZE was high but MAS never once made a profit on that flight.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
I think it's safe to say that *everything* is the problem, including the 380s.

Agreed.

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 31):
Fares have shown the trend, they are chasing load factors at the expense of yields.

Spot on! I paid only RM180 for a return ticket between Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu (2 hours 30 minutes flight) a few times last year! Yes, a few times, not just once or twice! RM180 in last year's value equal to about USD52 only!

Besides that, i also managed to buy a return ticket between/and
- KUL-BKK for only RM386 (USD125), 2 hours flight
- BKI-KIX for only RM797 (USD257), 5 hours flight
- BKI-NRT for only RM1253 (USD404), 5 hours flight

And it wasn't hard for me to get all these deeply discounted tickets at all!

Quoting 9MMPQ (Reply 31):
Why not also research the arrangements with their catering provider, you'll be surprised and get the picture even more.

Finally someone brought this up. Google about the contract MAS signed with their main catering provider and you'll be so surprised! I bet the Economy Class Nasi Lemak MAS paid to its catering provider at KUL cost a lot more than SIA is paying SATS! I also dare say the Chicken/Beef Satays MAS serves is more expensive than SIA's!

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 33):
significantly less Government intereference in their operations.

Hmm... Malaysians don't think so.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24812
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:00 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 37):
I disagree. The fact that MH has had such a large volume increase is testament to the demand but MH now needs to do is make a profit out of it.MH needed to do some catchup in terms of building out its network and frequencies and don't forget that the majority of this capacity increase has been done by the 738 fleet in their regional/short haul network. They needed to catchup to AirAsia and they have done a faily decent job of it while the Government has largely not impeded them as they have in the past.

MH are truly fools if they thought they could grow 17% in a year and maintain some semblance of yields especially when they have the likes of Air Asia at home, and ME3 on longhaul sectors.

Some financial modeling should have made it obvious yield erosion would lead to deepening losses.

MH can't meet Air Asia or ME3 on their fare terms as it starts the race from a higher cost base. More specifically MAS CASK was basically double that of Air Asia. (see below)

http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...t-while-ana-is-highest-cost-118729

=
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
macsog6
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:25 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:50 am

I sat in the MH Club one day at KUL during a long delay on the way to MNL and counted seven (7) variations of MH liveries (not counting one-off special ones) in service at one time. I could not help be reminded of the statement someone made (Bob Crandall?) that when an airline starts to change the livery for no apparent reason (such as a merger), it is a sure sign that something isn't going right with that airline.

MH seems to be changing the paint quite often. Maybe whoever said that was right.
Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
 
jtnstar
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:01 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:44 am

http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/B...better-numbers-going-forward.aspx/

The CEO of MAS, Ahmad Jauhari, denies the rumours about the plane orders.
 
behramjee
Posts: 5118
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:59 am

In the long run, in order to save on fleet related costs, MH should simplify around the following types:

A380s for long haul high density routes

A359s for medium density long haul + regional ASEAN services

B738MAX for regional ASEAN and selected domestic services

There is no real need for MH to order the B787-1000X nor the B777X series as the range of the B781 is a bit less for certain nonstop services to Europe + the B779 capacity is too big for MH for medium demand routes.

So 6 A380s remain + 35 A359s to be ordered to replace 15 A333s + 15 B772ERs + 5 for planned expansion + 55 B738MAXs to replace 51 B738s (+4 for planned expansion).
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:09 am

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 34):
Agree with you entirely.
However, I'm just tired of the blind claims that the 380 is the be all and end all. Great aircraft sure, but it's not suited to every carrier that has bought it

But who in this thread has even suggested that or tried to suggest that the A380 is or will be the saviour of MH? Could you point me to that? All the user you were replying to was trying to say was that the A380 was not responsible for MH's predicament like someone said, by pointing out it's positivies. But from that you seemed to have read what you wanted to read and jumped to nonsensical conclusions and fighting shadows. Beyond sad.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:36 pm

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 9):
Sorry, the A380 isn't to blame, however much some would like it to be.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
The financial problems of MH are not A380-related, period.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 13):
From this thread: RUMOR: Turkish Airlines To Wet-lease A380s (by KarelXWB Feb 18 2014 in Civil Aviation)
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 15):
So that is basis enough for the fact that the A380 is not causing the financial negatives MH is still in. Unless they bought them at 0% discount prices, then I can understand them not making profits with their A380's.  
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 20):
But based on the numbers I still believe, and with good reasons, that they operate the A380 on a profitable bases.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
I stick to my claim/conviction, with these load factors MH is not making losses on the A380-operations. Cold hard facts or not, the load-factors are telling enough. Unless one does not want to believe, but that is a different matter.......
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 28):
So instead of focusing on a plane to suit your agendas, focus on the facts, inefficiency and increased low cost competition is bleeding MH dry. The one thing that they have and that they use to their advantage is the A380 on their LHR route. Its a success.
Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 42):
But who in this thread has even suggested that or tried to suggest that the A380 is or will be the saviour of MH? Could you point me to that? All the user you were replying to was trying to say was that the A380 was not responsible for MH's predicament like someone said, by pointing out it's positivies. But from that you seemed to have read what you wanted to read and jumped to nonsensical conclusions and fighting shadows. Beyond sad.

From the above, I would feel you could gather that these comments suggest that the 380 has nothing to do with the problems at MH.

Now please point out to me where I said that the 380 IS the problem at MH. I have contested that it is part of the problem, not is the problem, nor is it the solution.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 12):
Which facts from MH contradict that the 380 is not contributing to their problems ?

I'm not saying they are, but you seem so sure that they are not that I assume you have proof of this ?   
Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 19):
I just don't understand your assumption that if they operate their 380's with load factors of 80% the yields must be OK, but this doesn't extend to other aircraft types, at least that seems to be what you are insinuating ?
Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 21):
Though the increase in seats between the 380 and the 744 is significant, direct operating costs per flight are likely similar, the bigger impact the 380 would have is the added ownership costs over the 744.
Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 26):
I'm, not going to bash it and not going to sing it's praises either, but I will say it's not suited to every carrier who has it now, while there a couple who could make use of it.
Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 32):
However, I'm just tired of the blind claims that the 380 is the be all and end all. Great aircraft sure, but it's not suited to every carrier that has bought it.

Please show me where I have bagged the 380 ? Or, am I just "beyond sad" ?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:17 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 32):
I'm just tired of the blind claims that the 380 is the be all and end all. Great aircraft sure, but it's not suited to every carrier that has bought it.

But that was never claimed. Despite the list of quotes you have put together. That the A380 is the be all and end all was never claimed. You have misread or misinterpreted that completely.

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 42):
But who in this thread has even suggested that or tried to suggest that the A380 is or will be the saviour of MH? Could you point me to that? All the user you were replying to was trying to say was that the A380 was not responsible for MH's predicament like someone said, by pointing out it's positivies.

Indeed. That is what was written, and was intended.

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 42):
But from that you seemed to have read what you wanted to read and jumped to nonsensical conclusions and fighting shadows. Beyond sad.

Sadly enough that seems to be the case.

Again, with such LF the A380's are for sure not part of the main the problems MH is facing. They are most likely making a profit out of them. But with only 6 birds the profits can not have that a dramatic effect on the overall numbers of MH. That was claimed, and the LF prove it to a fairly reasonable degree as no airline will publish numbers hoe much they earn or loss per aircraft type that these airlines operate.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:03 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44):
But that was never claimed. Despite the list of quotes you have put together. That the A380 is the be all and end all was never claimed. You have misread or misinterpreted that completely.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44):

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 32):
I'm just tired of the blind claims that the 380 is the be all and end all. Great aircraft sure, but it's not suited to every carrier that has bought it.

But that was never claimed. Despite the list of quotes you have put together. That the A380 is the be all and end all was never claimed. You have misread or misinterpreted that completely.

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 42):
But who in this thread has even suggested that or tried to suggest that the A380 is or will be the saviour of MH? Could you point me to that? All the user you were replying to was trying to say was that the A380 was not responsible for MH's predicament like someone said, by pointing out it's positivies.

Indeed. That is what was written, and was intended.

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 42):
But from that you seemed to have read what you wanted to read and jumped to nonsensical conclusions and fighting shadows. Beyond sad.

Sadly enough that seems to be the case.

Again, with such LF the A380's are for sure not part of the main the problems MH is facing. They are most likely making a profit out of them. But with only 6 birds the profits can not have that a dramatic effect on the overall numbers of MH. That was claimed, and the LF prove it to a fairly reasonable degree as no airline will publish numbers hoe much they earn or loss per aircraft type that these airlines operate.

Perhaps I've been reading the posts from people such as yourself the wrong way since I've joined this site then.

Why did you single out the 380 services as being ones which should make a profit ? Can't purely be because they have a high load factor because I'd be reasonably confident that most MH mid to long haul flights would have a similar load factor.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44):
Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 42):
But from that you seemed to have read what you wanted to read and jumped to nonsensical conclusions and fighting shadows. Beyond sad.

Sadly enough that seems to be the case.

Would still like someone to show me where I have criticised the 380 ?

If you were a Boeing fan boy and singled out a Boeing product in such a nonsensical way, I would pick up on that as well. That is the problem with "fanboys" too busy protecting or praising your "home team" that you are blinded to what aircraft are, simply a means for an airline to attempt to make money by utilising said aircraft and that not all aircraft are suited to every airlines needs. So while you may think that my opinion is "beyond sad", I will continue to have what I feel is a balanced view and until someone can back up their opinion with facts which contradict my views, I will stick by them.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:20 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 45):
Why did you single out the 380 services as being ones which should make a profit ?

Simple, in a response to reply 3 where the A380 was directly blamed as a major cause of the financial problems of MH.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 45):
Would still like someone to show me where I have criticised the 380

Not directly, but indirectly you have made your doubts quite clear. Which is your good right, but is my right to disagree with that. And I have backed that up much more than you have backed-up your doubts. I think that is fair to say if one would look at this discussion objectively.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 45):
That is the problem with "fanboys"

I think this explains your reactions best. You presume the response is coming from an A380-fanboy, where actually the opposite is true. If I am a fanboy, then I am a fanboy of civil aviation in general. I have tried, and will always try to fly as many airliners with as many airlines as possible, no matter which OEM's has built the aircraft or which OEM has delivered the engine to.

Of course we all have our bias or preferences, And I do feel Airbus in general builds the more attractive airplanes for me, but unlike some fanboys I will not try to avoid any airplane. The contrary is true, I try to fly as many different airliner types that I can. And I always enjoy the experience, even though some experiences are better than the other.

My most impressive flights have therefore been on the A380, the A330, the B767 and the B727. But also enjoyed highly the several A340's, B777's, B757, B737, A320, Embraer, Fokkers, etc, etc, etc.



[Edited 2014-02-20 07:33:27]
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:49 pm

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 3):
As article mentions MH had a massive 17% capacity jump in 2013. Of course yields will plummet when you have things like A380 to fill overnight along with additional capacity regionally as Air Asia CEO virtually declared war on MH.

How was that criticising the 380. it was simply stating a fact ! The 380 seats far more than the 744's they were replacing.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46):
Not directly, but indirectly you have made your doubts quite clear.

I expressed my doubts about the suitability of the 380 in the MH fleet, not of the 380 itself.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46):
I think this explains your reactions best. You presume the response is coming from an A380-fanboy, where actually the opposite is true. If I am a fanboy, then I am a fanboy of civil aviation in general. I have tried, and will always try to fly as many airliners with as many airlines as possible, no matter which OEM's has built the aircraft or which OEM has delivered the engine to.

Hmmmm, you're confusing me here (not hard mind you), but you leapt to the defence of the 380, when you say above you're not a fan of the 380, when the 380 wasn't actually being criticised.   

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46):
My most impressive flights have therefore been on the A380, the A330, the B767 and the B727. But also enjoyed highly the several A340's, B777's, B757, B737, A320, Embraer, Fokkers, etc, etc, etc.

I'll quite happily single out my best flight.... DC 6 of Namibia Commercial Aviation from Victoria Falls to Windhoek   

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46):
Of course we all have out bias, And I do feel Airbus is general builds the more attractive airplanes for me, but unlike some fanboys I will not try to avoid any airplane. The contrary is true, I try to fly as many different airliner types that I can. And I always enjoy the experience, even though some experiences are better than the other.

Have yet to avoid an aircraft type, in fact if possible will go out of my way to fly on something different with as many airlines as possible. The problem with modern aviation is everything new looks generic !
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:25 pm

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 47):
Hmmmm, you're confusing me here (not hard mind you), but you leapt to the defence of the 380, when you say above you're not a fan of the 380, when the 380 wasn't actually being criticised

Maybe I can clear up the confusion for you. Because it is really quite simple. I am not a fan of the A380, or any other airplane. I am a real fan of my favourite football team, which usually is not the best, but I support them anyway.

But credit is due where credit is due. And the A380 simply is a stellar performer and for a passenger a superb airplane to be on. The best civil aviation has to offer so far on multiple points. And especially here on A-net it does not nearly gets the credits it should get based on those merits. That is why I am usually defending the A380 since it is also usually "attacked" or overly criticised on emotions, and not on merits. As you can see in post 3 of this thread.

I would also do that for any other airplane that I can think of, be it made by A, B or the small B, or from E or whoever has built the airplane. But on A-net airplanes built by A are usually more "under attack" or overly criticised then others, and also quite often sadly enough not based on merits. If I feel that is the case, I will try to counter that with facts (as good as I can and of course if these are publicly available), as I have done here and in many threads before.

And I will continue to do so to get the best balanced view stated here as possible.  . And will try to learn from the majority of the posters who also do post very informative and high-quality posts here. Because I find that enjoying and entertaining at the same time.  .

[Edited 2014-02-20 08:42:54]
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: Malaysian Loss Triples; Seeks 100 New Planes

Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:53 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 48):

I agree the 380 is a fine aircraft and is proving so in service, but it has had it's problems, early on in manufacturing and more recently with the wing rib cracking, but still a fine aircraft and will be for decades.

While it comes under a fair bit of criticism from opposition fan boys, the other manufacturer more than cops their fair share back for their various products as well. It sure isn't one way traffic in that regard. While you may feel it is attacked on "emotion" it is also defended on "emotion" as well and while we may like to see lots more of our favourite types flying with our favourite airlines, the hard facts in the present environment is that it is now a niche aircraft, suited to the likes of EK and their intercontinental hub, LH, AF, BA, KE and a few others who have long range, high demand flights, but that market is limited now as the newer long range twins give comparable operating costs and can link smaller markets without the worry of filling 450+ seats without discounting.

I would single out MH,CZ and perhaps TG who would probably prefer they didn't have them now, they saw a need (probably more for MH and TG a need to keep up with SQ) when they ordered them, but things have changed and a lot of that need has evaporated. But having said that, I doubt any of them will get rid of them now, they have them and will use them as best as possible.

As for passenger experience, I've flown it, in steerage, wasn't anything different to other long haul aircraft I've flown, was disappointed after the hype about it, wasn't any better or worse, just another economy seat on a 14 hour flight.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos