Malaysia Airlines has 6 A350-900 aircraft inbound. The first 4 aircraft will be put on the LHR route and the remaining 2 aircraft were intended to resume European destinations like Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt. However, the carrier has changed its mind - again - and is looking at other destinations for the remaining 2 A350 aircraft.

However, Malaysia Airlines is revising earlier plans to use the final two members of its six-strong A350 fleet – now slated for delivery by June 2018 – to re-open flights to Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt, routes which the airline shuttered in 2015-2016.

Airline CEO Peter Bellew previously axed plans to send the A350 to Auckland, and ruled out other destinations such as Australia and Tokyo, saying "it’s an expensive aircraft and we have to find something meaty and significant to do with it. We hope to find something more than nine hours."

It's believed that no European destination other than London would provide the high traffic which Malaysia Airlines requires for its A350s, which will come with ongoing leasing payments rather than being bought outright.

Article
https://www.ausbt.com.au/malaysia-airli ... nuary-2018

So where to deploy the remaining two aircraft?

Maybe America WestCoast? KUL-LAX, KUL-SFO, or Vancouver? Probably just on the edge, but could be an option.

Cheers,
Adam

I would say Madrid as one of One World's prime hubs and maybe somewhere in Scandinavia. Their people have tons of money and travel to Asia like no others.

21pilots wrote:

I would say Madrid as one of One World's prime hubs and maybe somewhere in Scandinavia. Their people have tons of money and travel to Asia like no others.

Helsinki? HEL is a hub for Finnair which is a member of Oneworld. HEL is the only major Oneworld hub in the Northern Europe as SAS is in Star Alliance. There is no service between KUL and HEL. Malaysia Airlines would fly KUL-HEL and Finnair operates the feeder traffic.

The MH CEO has stated he would prefer to see flights longer than 9 hours - that will mean Europe, the US or South Africa. He has already said that Europe is not able to support profitable operation like LHR. AKL is also ruled out. That makes the US and South Africa potential destinations for the A359.

The South Africa run used to be fairly lucrative before oil prices busted USD100 and MH should look very hard at this route again. The KUL-JNB-CPT route should be resumed, now that they have the A359.

QuawerAir wrote:

21pilots wrote:

I would say Madrid as one of One World's prime hubs and maybe somewhere in Scandinavia. Their people have tons of money and travel to Asia like no others.

Helsinki? HEL is a hub for Finnair which is a member of Oneworld. HEL is the only major Oneworld hub in the Northern Europe as SAS is in Star Alliance. There is no service between KUL and HEL. Malaysia Airlines would fly KUL-HEL and Finnair operates the feeder traffic.

I think HEL fulfills this requirement:

"We hope to find something more than nine hours."

But not this one:

"it’s an expensive aircraft and we have to find something meaty and significant to do with it."

So do they need a smaller long range aircraft? I'm sure Boeing would sell them one!

fcogafa wrote:

So do they need a smaller long range aircraft? I'm sure Boeing would sell them one!

Ex-ET A332's will be joining the fleet later this year. But this thread is about their A359s. Please stay on topic!

Would the A339 be that iffy flying KUL-LHR in MH's configuration?

Because honestly that plane sounds like it would be a better long term solution than a small A350 fleet that MH already appears to be wishy-washy about on optimal usage like the A380s.

The only possibly viable European destination for MH is London, if any. 2 daily London takes 4 A350. What to do with the other two? Lease them out to someone who wants them. MH can probably break even on that.

All other routes of MH are better off using A333 or 737.

I feel like MH should have went with the 789, Solid all around replacement for A330/777

raylee67 wrote:

The only possibly viable European destination for MH is London, if any. 2 daily London takes 4 A350. What to do with the other two? Lease them out to someone who wants them. MH can probably break even on that.

MH is leasing the planes from ALC, they are not direct orders from Airbus. Aside from the fact that it makes zero sense to lease more planes than you intend to use just to sublease them out it may not be allowed per their lease agreement with ALC (ALC doesn't want MH acting as a middle man competing against their own business with their own planes).

9+ hour meaty route? Almost impossible to achieve from the get go! They have to give up either.

Meaty? PEK, MEL, SYD, NRT .. But all around 4k nm and better upgraded with frequencies rather than equipment if needed
9+ hour? CDG, AMS .. requires patience at first

It would be nice to see MH back at LAX, but I doubt the premium market is there to sustain the service profitably. Also, the range might be problematic, seeing as SQ is waiting for their A350-900ULRs to start SIN-LAX. They could do it with a stopover, but almost every major East Asian market from LAX is already crowded. KIX doesn't have too much service and is a major city, but the costs are notoriously high. TPE and NRT are already well-served from LAX, MNL is generally low-yield...

I found this info in the ausbt.com.au article to be quite strange: MH will use a business class seat (or at least a seat that other carriers have been installing in their business class cabins) for their first class cabin in the A359. Is the Vantage XL that much superior to the Vantage that MH uses as business class seat in the A330s and that will also be fitted in the A359? I think this is weird. I guess the better question is why they just not transition to Business and Economy (or Business, Premium Economy, and Economy) and ditch First altogether. By using a business class seat as a first class seat, they are putting themselves in a position where they will be outgunned by BA, EK, EY, SQ, TG, CX, etc. in the competition for first class passengers.

Aside from that, it seem MH has a vision and strategy crisis. If they now decide that the A359 is only appropriate in terms of operational cost for LHR and not for CDG, AMS, FRA, TYO, SYD, MEL and AKL, then they clearly have ordered the wrong aircraft. Some posters have advocated for MH to retry JNB. Let's give that possibility the benefit of the doubt. Having six aircraft to serve LHR and JNB only still seems like a less than ideal choice. LAX or SFO, if launched, would simply be unprofitable no matter what kind of aircraft they use (either nonstop or one-stop). Will the A359s also be a temporary solution and will MH look for widebodies that are cheaper to acquire and operate? Or will MH just come to the realization that they will have to deploy their six A359s to some of the destinations mentioned above (in addition to LHR) even if it is not the most cost-efficient plane for those routes because that's what they have available?

flee wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

So do they need a smaller long range aircraft? I'm sure Boeing would sell them one!

Ex-ET A332's will be joining the fleet later this year. But this thread is about their A359s. Please stay on topic!

ET had A332s? Newer knew that! I looked on Planespotters and it shows no a332s in or out of the fleet.Are you sure it's ET which is Ethiopian Airlines.
Also I looked for images and there's none.

TheGeordielad wrote:

flee wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

So do they need a smaller long range aircraft? I'm sure Boeing would sell them one!

Ex-ET A332's will be joining the fleet later this year. But this thread is about their A359s. Please stay on topic!

ET had A332s? Newer knew that! I looked on Planespotters and it shows no a332s in or out of the fleet.Are you sure it's ET which is Ethiopian Airlines.
Also I looked for images and there's none.

Sorry about the typo, it was supposed to be ex-EY.

South Africa - KUL - Canada?
South Africa - KUL - Perth?

QuawerAir wrote:

21pilots wrote:

I would say Madrid as one of One World's prime hubs and maybe somewhere in Scandinavia. Their people have tons of money and travel to Asia like no others.

Helsinki? HEL is a hub for Finnair which is a member of Oneworld. HEL is the only major Oneworld hub in the Northern Europe as SAS is in Star Alliance. There is no service between KUL and HEL. Malaysia Airlines would fly KUL-HEL and Finnair operates the feeder traffic.

It doesn't meet the most important reason why the A350s are not going to AMS, FRA or CDG.

It's believed that no European destination other than London would provide the high traffic which Malaysia Airlines requires for its A350s, which will come with ongoing leasing payments rather than being bought outright

HEL can never support such flight with a healthy yield. The O&D is close to non-existent and those one-stop services have too much competition to be profitable. Add to this the detour you'll have to make if you fly from Western Europe to KUL and HEL isn't a viable destination for MH.

To me Amsterdam remains the obvious choice ABOVE all Oneworld points because they traditionally carried many many Indonesian connectors and a Bazillion tonnes of cargo.

Personally don't get this continued A- Netter obsession with Hub and Spoke alliance based models. The industry is actually moving on from this noughties business model imho.

If MAS can't apparently make Frankfurt or Paris work , how in hell would Madrid or Helsinki work in the hope that they lift a few partners SLFs at x in the £/€/$.

No they need to uplift many more point to point or beyond KUL and command higher fares and yield , and alliances don't create those especially not for smaller players.

MAS remains a badly run airline in a changed market place unable to compete in the competitive EU-Australia markets against the ME3 and QF, too far south to compete with the burgeoning China- EU markets, too far East for EU- India , hopeless Asia- US (they loose swimming pool amounts of money every time).
The China- Africa/South America markets are already lost and ceded to African Chinese and desert based carriers imho.

What MAS need to do imho is consider aiming squarely at the high end leisure markets getting a quality premium economy and balanced club style product to market and heavily marketing Langkawi/Penang/Malacca and perhaps dedicating a frame or two exclusively to holiday charters from certain EU and Australian markets ...

Polot wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

The only possibly viable European destination for MH is London, if any. 2 daily London takes 4 A350. What to do with the other two? Lease them out to someone who wants them. MH can probably break even on that.

MH is leasing the planes from ALC, they are not direct orders from Airbus. Aside from the fact that it makes zero sense to lease more planes than you intend to use just to sublease them out it may not be allowed per their lease agreement with ALC (ALC doesn't want MH acting as a middle man competing against their own business with their own planes).

Ah, I see. Didn't know MH is leasing them. Then I think the best course of action is to talk to ALC and return the 2 additional aircraft.

sadiqutp wrote:

9+ hour meaty route? Almost impossible to achieve from the get go! They have to give up either.

Meaty? PEK, MEL, SYD, NRT .. But all around 4k nm and better upgraded with frequencies rather than equipment if needed
9+ hour? CDG, AMS .. requires patience at first

Current MH Summer 2017 Timetable - shows KUL-AMS 10x weekly:

- KUL 08:45 - AMS 15:25 MH5664 B777 Mon, Fri, Sat (operated by KLM)
- KUL 23:20 - AMS 06:00 MH5632 B777 Daily (operated by KLM)

In addition MH maintains on-line connections from AMS:

- 06:50 AMS-ARN MH5663
- 06.50 AMS-BRU MH5683
- 07.00 AMS-GVA MH5687
- 07.00 AMS-OSL MH5671
- 07.05 AMS-ZRH MH5691
- 07.15 AMS-FCO MH5679
- 07.35 AMS-CPH MH5639
- 07.50 AMS-GOT MH5645
- 08.15 AMS-SVG MH5651
- 09.05 AMS-BRU MH5659
- 09.20 AMS-OSL MH5643
- 09.35 AMS-FCO MH5655
- 09.45 AMS-CPH MH5641
- 09.50 AMS-GOT MH5647

etc....etc....

Today MH maintains a European network in close cooperation with KLM, based on codesharing on KLM's 10x weekly KUL-AMS and beyond connections.
It would be relatively simple for MH to re-activate its former KUL-AMS route in cooperation with KLM, and feed its AMS hub with its own metal.

factsonly wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

9+ hour meaty route? Almost impossible to achieve from the get go! They have to give up either.

Meaty? PEK, MEL, SYD, NRT .. But all around 4k nm and better upgraded with frequencies rather than equipment if needed
9+ hour? CDG, AMS .. requires patience at first

Current MH Summer 2017 Timetable - shows KUL-AMS 10x weekly:

- KUL 08:45 - AMS 15:25 MH5664 B777 Mon, Fri, Sat (operated by KLM)
- KUL 23:20 - AMS 06:00 MH5632 B777 Daily (operated by KLM)

In addition MH maintains on-line connections from AMS:

- 06:50 AMS-ARN MH5663
- 06.50 AMS-BRU MH5683
- 07.00 AMS-GVA MH5687
- 07.00 AMS-OSL MH5671
- 07.05 AMS-ZRH MH5691
- 07.15 AMS-FCO MH5679
- 07.35 AMS-CPH MH5639
- 07.50 AMS-GOT MH5645
- 08.15 AMS-SVG MH5651
- 09.05 AMS-BRU MH5659
- 09.20 AMS-OSL MH5643
- 09.35 AMS-FCO MH5655
- 09.45 AMS-CPH MH5641
- 09.50 AMS-GOT MH5647

etc....etc....

Today MH maintains a European network in close cooperation with KLM, based on codesharing on KLM's 10x weekly KUL-AMS and beyond connections.
It would be relatively simple for MH to re-activate its former KUL-AMS route in cooperation with KLM, and feed its AMS hub with its own metal.

I am not sure your suggestion is as simple as you believe. You seem to be advocating one of two solutions.

The first is that MH take over the KL flights, with KL codesharing. This leaves a simple commercial decision for KL. Do they make more money as is, or can they make more redeploying their 777s elsewhere ? If the former, why give up the flying ? if the latter, they will push MH into doing it.

The second is that MH operate an additional flight on their own metal. The extra capacity would probably wreak havoc with yields for both airlines, and quite possibly spur KL into cancelling the codeshares, thus drastically reducing MH's AMS feed. This would leave a question as to who would stand the pain longer, and potentially leave MH with no flights and burned bridges regarding codeshares.

VolvoBus wrote:

factsonly wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

9+ hour meaty route? Almost impossible to achieve from the get go! They have to give up either.

Meaty? PEK, MEL, SYD, NRT .. But all around 4k nm and better upgraded with frequencies rather than equipment if needed
9+ hour? CDG, AMS .. requires patience at first

Current MH Summer 2017 Timetable - shows KUL-AMS 10x weekly:

- KUL 08:45 - AMS 15:25 MH5664 B777 Mon, Fri, Sat (operated by KLM)
- KUL 23:20 - AMS 06:00 MH5632 B777 Daily (operated by KLM)

In addition MH maintains on-line connections from AMS:

- 06:50 AMS-ARN MH5663
- 06.50 AMS-BRU MH5683
- 07.00 AMS-GVA MH5687
- 07.00 AMS-OSL MH5671
- 07.05 AMS-ZRH MH5691
- 07.15 AMS-FCO MH5679
- 07.35 AMS-CPH MH5639
- 07.50 AMS-GOT MH5645
- 08.15 AMS-SVG MH5651
- 09.05 AMS-BRU MH5659
- 09.20 AMS-OSL MH5643
- 09.35 AMS-FCO MH5655
- 09.45 AMS-CPH MH5641
- 09.50 AMS-GOT MH5647

etc....etc....

Today MH maintains a European network in close cooperation with KLM, based on codesharing on KLM's 10x weekly KUL-AMS and beyond connections.
It would be relatively simple for MH to re-activate its former KUL-AMS route in cooperation with KLM, and feed its AMS hub with its own metal.

I am not sure your suggestion is as simple as you believe. You seem to be advocating one of two solutions.

The first is that MH take over the KL flights, with KL codesharing. This leaves a simple commercial decision for KL. Do they make more money as is, or can they make more redeploying their 777s elsewhere ? If the former, why give up the flying ? if the latter, they will push MH into doing it.

The second is that MH operate an additional flight on their own metal. The extra capacity would probably wreak havoc with yields for both airlines, and quite possibly spur KL into cancelling the codeshares, thus drastically reducing MH's AMS feed. This would leave a question as to who would stand the pain longer, and potentially leave MH with no flights and burned bridges regarding codeshares.

The history of the route is that both MH and KL operated KUL-AMS once daily each for many years - with codeshares on eachother services from/to and beyond the hubs KUL/AMS. So effectively each airline operated 2x daily bridge flights KUL-AMS with a wide ranging network beyond each hub.

It is only since MH departure last year, that KL increased frequency to 10x weekly AMS-KUL with full MH codeshare on all services, while (perhaps surprisingly) MH maintained part its beyond AMS network - all on KL metal. If MH wanted I am sure KL would be willing to re-instate the double daily MH and KL flights, and be able to find other suitable employment for the 3x weekly B772 services. It would offer MH more European destinations not served through its codeshare with EK/DXB.

All this indicates, is that MH could operationally and commercially quite easily re-open KUL-AMS as a A350 route. However only MH management can decide if this option can be done profitably or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABJH6ug62zs

I get the feeling that CEO Peter Bellew is being told what to do. I fear that the owner (Malaysian government) of MAS is dictating Bellew on some strategic decisions. I do believe the reason Christoph Mueller left was that he was getting frustrated with the inferiority complex of the Malay owners.

The 2 off A350s being used on routes greater than 9hrs would not allow daily flights. Note that I am considering one A350 to be used when one of the 6 is in for checks and maintenance. The original idea of using it for Auckland sounded like good business sense. I do understand that a new aircraft type with the most up to date hard product should be used on "prestigious" destinations, but a route being more than 9+ hrs is London. Adding another destination to Europe will be a disaster, even the double daily to LHR makes no sense. I am sure during Mueller's time a lot of money was spent on management consultants who concluded it would be a blood bath because of ME3+TK.

North America, even when times were good for MAS, was not making money on the routes either via Europe or through Japan/Korea/Taiwan.

As for South Africa, not sure about that one, but I think that was also a loosing route.

I hate to say it, but hubristic pride is coming back at MAS for some unknown reason. The owners should be patient and let things settle and let it grow in the pace that the management can sustain. Only then MAS will be back to its glory days.

flee wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

So do they need a smaller long range aircraft? I'm sure Boeing would sell them one!

Ex-ET A332's will be joining the fleet later this year. But this thread is about their A359s. Please stay on topic!

Ethiopian Airlines never operated the A330. The A350 was their first ever Airbus order. Do you mean EY?

So what are they saying, that even with discounts and increased efficiency, the economics of the loan used to purchase / lease the a/c determines where they operate the a/c? Did they use the wrong metrics in getting the a/c, should they have looked for the cheapest?

There is a newer thread on MH's future plans.

Please continue your discussion there:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1369375