The Telegraph reports:

Quote: Malaysia Airlines is likely to change its name as part of a radical overhaul in the wake of the death of 298 passengers in a missile attack on a flight over Ukraine. The Malaysian flag carrier, majority-owned by the government, will also seek new investors to rebuild its business after two major tragedies within six months. Work has begun on a strategic review that will restructure the airline’s routes and expand ousourcing to increase profitability. Sources said additional private investment for the airline could come from rival aviation groups. At the same time, Malaysia Airlines is also calling for a single global body to monitor threats and decide where civilian aircraft are allowed to fly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...overhaul-after-MH17-and-MH370.html

Does it make any sense to change the company's name? Thoughts?

If they do ( and it wouldn't be the first time for them) I would expect it to not be too drastic... probably something similar to how Korean Airlines changed to Korean Air post KE007, perhaps Air Malaysia, something to put a little bit of distance from the current name but still clearly identifying them as a 'flag carrier' for their country.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): Does it make any sense to change the company's name? Thoughts?

I wonder what will the choose as a name, however if I remember correctly KE kinda did the same from Korean Air Lines to Korean Air with a much bolder and attractive livery following KE007. China Airlines didn't change its name but completely overhauled its livery following a series of accidents.

No i dont think so, and i think many people know that this second incident is just bad luck and a chance of 1 out a 1000000000. Who would have thought that in a 6 month time period the same company would lose two same type of aircraft? i think no one. And there is just one big carrier in malaysia and i think most people know so a name change would not really change a lot i think. What would it be then? malaysian airways? air malay? air malaysia as long as it has the word malaysia in it i dont think it will make a big difference.

That's a shame. Malaysia Airlines is still, for all its faults, the global ambassador and symbol of Malaysia - which is such a wonderful country with wonderful people.

I have no doubt a "radical restructuring" is in order. Recapitalizing the widebody fleet based on nothing but a few 77Ws and some more A330s seems like a logical start - there isn't really much need for the 772s or A380s anymore.

But I hope that any rebranding isn't too dramatic - I actually think Malaysia's current brand is excellent.

My heart goes out to the staff of Malaysia Airlines.
I have flown on them twice and the service was superb.
I would have no hesitation to fly on them again.
No airline has had the kind of worldwide, sustained publicity for all the wrong reasons as they have had since MH370 went missing. I fully understand the possibility of a 'rebirth' for MAS and the way it may help the staff psychologically move on from 370 and 17. Even the simple thing of changing the 'MH' airline designator would help, as unfortunately it will now remind people of the two tragedies, with the flight numbers being used extensively in the media as the tag for these stories.
A new colourscheme? Yes, essential. Getting rid of the 'kite' logo? Sad but I think it may be necessary. Change of name? I'm in two minds about it...
Bunumuring.

I think this will be a smart move going forward - yes the MH17 accident was not their fault; however public perception can be quite ignorant - I know several people who won't fly / associate with certain airlines based on historic incidents / bad experiences.

Whilst it will be a shame to lose their rather awesome livery in my opinion; I understand why they might consider it and I support them in doing so.

Kevin

KE went from this to that.

View Large View Medium Photo © Udo K. Haafke

View Large View Medium Photo © Andreas Wessel

It's now been thirty years since that ill-fated flight so the memories are not as vivd today as they were then, but back then, what was seen in every newspapers and on every TV screens? KAL007, Korean Air Lines titles, KAL tail logo and so on. What has been seen since MH370 disappeared and MH17 got shot down? MH red and blue livery, fish logo and titles.

May be they can start using full name Malaysian Airline System or go back to Malayan Airlines. I really doubt there will be any belt tightning. They will get a huge bailout package from government. Politicians will be too stupid not to cash in the sympathy MH has right now to bounce back, plus national pride.

It worked for Valujet.

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 9): It worked for Valujet.

They resorted to M&A activity to accomplish that, however.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10): Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 9): It worked for Valujet. They resorted to M&A activity to accomplish that, however.

I think Valujet's operational issues were different from the unusual pair of incidents Malaysia has experienced. I don't know that these will leave the same bad taste in the mouth as the Valujet case. Plus "Critter" had a cleaner way out than just a total rebranding by taking another existing name through the M&A. But I could be wrong, depending on how trashing the media gets. I suppose they could go back to "MAS" in the titles without it being a true corporate change until it eventually blows over. Most people outside of A.net have short memories on these things.

Too bad - hoping to try out MH this fall. Great award availability, of course, but they deserve a chance to right the ship. I would assume they'd remain in oneworld? One would hope so, anyway.

The general population forget things easily and quickly. If you ask most people now what MH370 is they would probably think its a type of food. Therefore it is not absolutely necessary for MAS to change their name. People naturally flock to low rates so if that is what MAS offers on certain legs, numbers will not suffer. However since it is two large scale incidents that followed each other in a short time period, the name Malaysian Airlines has stuck in the minds of many unintelligent people as a carrier to avoid. So it is quite possible to see a change in name, just to disassociate the airline from the bad name it now has in many unintelligent minds. We may also see a change in livery to perhaps the one on their A388s.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 8): fish logo

That's actually representing a Malay kite ('wau'), not a fish..

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 2): if I remember correctly KE kinda did the same from Korean Air Lines to Korean Air

Their legal name is still Korean Air Lines.

Knowing that MH has suffered two heavy disasters in a single year, I'd fly with them out of compassion. MH17 was not their fault - in contrary, the flight was shot down by untrained hillbillies with a Buk missile system. MH370 is still a mistery. They should keep the name. They're stronger than the current ill fate.


David

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 7): KE went from this to that.

Such a change was and is not the standard approach IMO. Some companies lost an aircraft every few years without changing their name or livery.

Quoting airwalk (Reply 13): The general population forget things easily and quickly.

That´s my impression too. The vast majority forgets really fast. This should be considered - even on today´s tendency to change a livery for no real reasons or every two years.

The direction of the visual appearance of Malaysia Airlines is not 100% clear to me due to the fact that there are three (?) different liveries IIRC: The original one (worn by the two 777s, the "cheap one" seen on at least one (?) Boeing 737-800 and the livery attached to the A380. So there was and there is no clear direction IMO and this is a general problem because the visual image should be consistent (except for an airline during the change from one livery to the new one).

Personally I would retained the original livery. Malaysia Airlines had their share of financial problems before MH370 disappeared and there were more fundamental problems than changing a livery used for many years. Ironically, the airline is now probably better known to many people due to the accidents and this shouldn´t be underestimated. This sounds crazy but this is the case.

A number of airlines took the advantage of the fact that the general population forgets easily and quickly and continued with their name and livery. A change from "Malaysia Airlines" to "Air Malaysia" (for example) won´t have the big positive effect IMO. Several newspapers printed "Air Malaysia" instead of "Malaysia Airlines" and many newspapers historically had/have problems with names: China Airlines - Air China, Indian Airlines - Air-India, Austral Lineas - Air Austral.

As long as the name "Malaysia" is part of the name, there would be no big effect to distant the airline from two sad accidents. I also strongly believe that (at least in Germany), the vast majority wasn´t able to find Malaysia on a map before MH370 happened. The "knowledge" of citizens is sometimes greatly overestimated.

Regards

Quoting MD80 (Reply 17): Such a change was and is not the standard approach IMO. Some companies lost an aircraft every few years without changing their name or livery.

Pan Am wrote off 12 707s in 11 years (including 5 in 9 months in 1973/74 and 3 in 6 months in 1968) plus a couple of 727s over the years. And there can't be many airlines other than Pan Am that have written off 5 747s (for all reasons including terrorism). The only one I can think of is KE.

And Pan Am was worse in the propeller era with, for example, 8 of their 29 B377 Stratocruisers being written off in 7 years (3 without fatalities).

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18): Pan Am wrote off 12 707s in 11 years (including 5 in 9 months in 1973/74 and 3 in 6 months in 1968) plus a couple of 727s over the years. And there can't be many airlines other than Pan Am that have written off 5 747s (for all reasons including terrorism). The only one I can think of is KE. And Pan Am was worse in the propeller era with, for example, 8 of their 29 B377 Stratocruisers being written off in 7 years (3 without fatalities).

Thanks for your - as always - very interesting information. Pan Am were one of the airlines that came into my mind before writing my opinion.

MH should retain the name but change the corporate logo.

Quoting changyou (Reply 20):

Nope. Both tragedies did not result in a loss of customers for MH (AFAIK), so there is nothing to change. So to say, MH was also a victim of the disasters, and as such it did not lose sympathy. There are still no indications of shoddy maintenance, gonzo pilots, bad safety attitudes or something like this.

On the other hand - put two little symbolic birds on each plane, one for flight 17, the other one for 370.


David

There are many reasons why (and probably many why not) for Malaysia and Singapore to merge.....The magnificent MSA, including the old scheme. What an Asian powerhouse that would be.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 17): Such a change was and is not the standard approach IMO. Some companies lost an aircraft every few years without changing their name or livery.

:Cough: Lion Air :Cough:   

They can follow Garuda Indonesia steps. Same name, only change the logo/branding and overall service, that should do it. If GA can do it, so does MH!

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 5): My heart goes out to the staff of Malaysia Airlines. I have flown on them twice and the service was superb. I would have no hesitation to fly on them again.

Such a shame there isn't a "like" button on a.net. My thoughts exactly.

I would rather see them keep the name but change the livery and image to that used for the A380, and apply it fleet/company-wide.

We, at LANDOR, after 9/11, soon after crash of an AA A300, we thought we may get a call as the iconic AA symbol was all over the place just after the most horrible of all times 9/11. People, already terribly shaken, the AA symbol was plastered all over and not the way they wanted or could be managed. Plus, even before 9/11 we knew AA at that time was indeed considering a new livery for many other reasons.

But the RIF never went out - nor for United.

I think it was the strength of those brands being able to stand up to a wildly negative media and all those who ate it up. In fact, not changing means the brand or company hasn't lost faith in themselves. Same for bp after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, their powerful identity helped see them through it!

Both waited for market conditions to decide the course of their rebrand programs.

I think Malaysia shouldn't change as it would be seen as a transparent make over. I would however make sure ALL my aircraft looked freshly painted and polished. Wait for another day to modernize the "kite" symbol and enhancements.

USAir became US Airways after their series of unfortunate events in the 80s/90s.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 27): Same for bp

BP still has a negative connotation in the US.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 27): strength of those brands

But how much stronger are the brands of UA and AA around the world vs MH?

Quoting VC10er (Reply 27): Same for bp after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, their powerful identity helped see them through it!

True, however BP is B2B, so all their consumers were just waiting for people to forget about this disaster (which most did very quickly). BPs consumers weren't scaling back because they were worried about the environment, they scaled back because they were worried about how their image would look, doing business with a company that caused wide scale environmental damage. If the rates are lower, business will flourish

MAS on the other hand is B2C, which means that they have to be a lot more careful about other things apart from price. Many people most unfortunately will avoid MAS flights from now on, just because of what damage has been caused to their image. Since no one goes to the shop and buys bp oil, but they do buy flights, it is a lot harder for an airline to push through.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 27): I would however make sure ALL my aircraft looked freshly painted and polished.

  


People on the whole are superficial. Put some fancy lights, a nice looking carpet and a wider IFE screen and numbers will soar.

Quoting UK_Dispatcher (Reply 26): I think Malaysia shouldn't change as it would be seen as a transparent make over. I would however make sure ALL my aircraft looked freshly painted and polished. Wait for another day to modernize the "kite" symbol and enhancements.

Hi mate,
I think you have changed my mind. Malaysia Airlines is a powerful brand. I am sure it will survive. Maybe retain the name and the pride of the company, and the iconic kite logo... But refresh the colours a la Korean Air, Garuda etc.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Quoting sejtam (Reply 14): That's actually representing a Malay kite ('wau'), not a fish..

Sorry for that.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 15): Their legal name is still Korean Air Lines.

Indeed but it doesn't show.

Every time I heard the name "Malaysia Airlines", I think of an airline with superb service, wonderful crews and tasty inflight meals. Every time I see the word "MH", I know it is not just an airline code; it stands for Malaysian Hospitality. I feel that the brand is very strong and well associated with a great and reliable airline company, even after the MH370 and MH17 events. So, I hope they don't change their name--even if they do, I hope the change is not too dramatic.

I think Malaysia Airlines should perform a complete transformation cabin and brand wise to eliminate the stigma of what it went through. Although, the crashes were probably by no fault of its own, Malaysian must regain consumer confidence.

I think most probably it will be named:

Malaysian Airways or just Malaysia (as in Emirates), or Malaysian

Whilst I, too, am a fan of the full Malaysian Airline System name, it might be more straightforward to call it MAS, similar to SAS.

After flying with MH to Heathrow from Sydney via KL in 2009-10, I would/will fly with them again. I flew on their tired B744s, so any future flight would be on a newer aircraft. They are very professional and proud. I personally dont believe that MH needs to change their name as it will not change my thoughts about them. Im certain that they will be doing their best to be the best they can be and offer the best service they can.

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 24): They can follow Garuda Indonesia steps. Same name, only change the logo/branding and overall service, that should do it. If GA can do it, so does MH!

Completely agree, I'm hoping to try out the GA product later this year when they launch the LHR-AMS service.

I'm sure if MH tried like GA they'd succeed greatly.

Quoting UK_Dispatcher (Reply 26): I would rather see them keep the name but change the livery and image to that used for the A380, and apply it fleet/company-wide.

Ditto. They need a livery which is across the fleet, obviously keeping their retro livery on the 738 though!

Quoting pusserchef (Reply 35): I would/will fly with them again

You would, however you have a lot more insight into aviation than the general population. Most people have limited/no interest and just see it as an essential way to get from place to place. Therefore they aren't as educated when it comes to aviation and emotion comes into play a lot. Most people now would just hear Malaysian Airlines = 2 lost aircraft = avoid.

As I said before I agree that nothing really needs to be done because people forget easily. In a few months time people would have completely forgotten about these incidents and the numbers will return to the way they were.

Malaysian Airlines is a great airline that faced a string of bad luck. I find it beyond annoying when I hear snide remarks about them because of these incidents. These will fade over time and MAS will continue to be the superb airline it is.

I flew Malaysia Airlines on my first trip to visit family in the UK when I was just 2 years old. From then until my passion for airlines began to grow at around 10 years old I referred to MH as 'Air Malaysia', because that's what my parents had called it. I used it so much, that even now saying 'Malaysia Airlines' feels weird to me, and Air Malaysia just comes more naturally

I feel Air Malaysia would be a good name to rebrand to. It still has extremely clear links with the country it is based in, and is different enough for some customers to assume it is a completely different company. I also feel like just the work 'Malaysian' would work well as well

I feel if they're going to rename themselves they shouldn't just stop there, but the renaming should also be accompanied with a design overhaul, from the livery on the outside to the seats within. MH is currently a mix-match of liveries and products, and a rebranding would help with their consistency

It's hard to know what they will do. There are many wounds to heal first. I expect at some stage they will make some sort of changes, perhaps using the MAS branding, but I would be surprised if this is before 370 is found, and investigations for both are completed.

It would be disrespectful otherwise. RIP

On the other hand, people are quite quick to forget.

I should once try out a simple quiz on Facebook... which goes like this:

- Which airline was involved in a crash in the Southern Atlantic a few years ago?

- Which airline from South-East Asia has had the most accidents in the past five years?

- Which airline has never had a deadly accident with jet-engined aircraft?

I'm sure there are more sensible questions...


David

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 24): They can follow Garuda Indonesia steps. Same name, only change the logo/branding and overall service, that should do it. If GA can do it, so does MH!

Agreed. I've flown GA several times and their product inflight offering is superb. The only downfall is the home base of GA, Jakarta Soekarno Hatta Airport (CGK), hopefully once Terminal 3 comes online & infrastructure upgrades are completed GA will be raising the bar.

MH on the other hand is complete with a superb hub KUL, unfortunately the airline has suffered with rebrands that failed, on a personal note I'm not sure which one of the 3 new liveries is the official livery? A fresh new start wouldn't hurt, perhaps focus on the brand and stick to one livery, 3 liveries don't cut it. I'm confident MH will survive the storm, there's light at the end of every tunnel.

EK413

I am truly heartbroken for all the employees of MH. I support them in whatever decisions they make.

A completely informal survey amongst friends and colleagues revealed that those who would "never fly on them" were people not involved in the industry and not frequent flyers; it seems to be the knee jerk reaction of those who would not normally fly often or on Malaysian anyway.

Perversely, people working in aviation and frequent flyers seemed to demonstrate an element of both sympathy and respect for the carrier and most freely admitted they would have no issue flying Malaysian again in the future.

On that very basic survey, I'd suggest the Malaysian brand is safe moving forwards.

Therefore, I do not see the point of a name change.

However, for those from the first category of infrequent flyers who said they would not fly Malaysian, a significant amount of their memory devoted to these two crashes has been built on pictures of the Malaysian B777s and footage of the livery on wreckage. It might therefore be fair to suggest a rebrand in the form of a livery change might be appropriate and all that is required.

For that, Malaysian already have something for that in the form of the A380 livery. It does away with the blue and red stripe people have seen on the wreckage pics and it does away with the grey fuselage. By contrast, the A380 scheme is a combination of white, blue and black which, although it retains the traditional Wau, I feel it is a symbol/logo/brand which has respect amongst its customers and peers and should therefore stay.

Rgds

Change the name. And get the financial house in order too.

The missile was a mess. Though not their fault.

Worse off is the perception (for now) that their own pilot took down their own 777 a few months ago.

And that is amplified by the perception of complete incompetence in the days following that crash.


Many on a.net will argue the point, but many (dare I say most) of John Q Public thinks one of MHs own brought down a plane full of people. The terrorist attack just compounds already negative feelings about the airline.


As for heritage and great airline talk, just before the last crash we were talking about how they were bleeding money with no way out. Along with this marketing refresh, perhaps a financial refresh.

For better or worse we do have the anecdotal evidence of Valujet becoming Airtran

MH should probably re-structure first (get new management, investors, a non-government control structure, strategic plan), and as a result of those changes then modify the name. Otherwise the name change will seem too much like a superficial mask, and the archane corporate culture will try to hide behind the name change and not make the changes that are needed to make MH a thriving, profitable and respected carrier.

I think any drastic name & livery change will be seen as a knee-jerk panic reaction to their sad losses. I'm sure that's how the press will see it anyway.
The passing of time, strength in the brand, passion of their people and excellence of customer service will be their way forward.

Would it be possible to change the IATA code? Since most people and media use the MH17 and MH370 codes to refer to the incidents it might be a good idea to get something new.

IIRC its tough to get your IATA code changed. Has MX been reassigned?