Malaysian Airlines, would you?

[DrTuner]

Just buy an amulet before flying.

[Ulic]

Pick the cheapest most convenient flight. No worries about Malaysian Airlines.

[kjhbigv]

MH370 is a bit of a mystery (which I am sure will be solved) BUT MH17 was blown out of the sky, that could have been one of many airlines and was just unlucky.

I got the best bargain ever on Concorde, it had crashed but withdrawal had not been announced, so got an absolute bargain and was probably safer than before as the modifications had been made. Would NEVER have been able to afford to go on it otherwise to NYC.

So, would I fly Malaysian? Absolutely, I reckon they are being extra vigilant about everything now...probably the safest time to fly with them, not that they were unsafe before....just unlucky.

[RJJ]

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

There was not a maintenance short cut or or other deadly cost saving ploy involved.

I have flown them a number of times to/from Melbourne and would have no hesitation flying them again.

[khaosai]

While it is not relevant to their current difficulties, it is worth bearing in mind that a few years back Malaysian was warned twice about coming into London Heathrow without the required amount of fuel, following the usual post-landing ground checks.

I believe they were told in no uncertain terms that UK landing rights would be rescinded if they were caught again.

An experienced pilot from another airline was quoted at the time as saying that, with the level of fuel they were carrying, if they had to do an emergency climb or avoidance manoeuvre, they would likely leave the tops of the fuel pipes exposed, leading to airlock in the supply. Also it opened up the possibility that they would have to claim priority landing rights at what is the world's busiest airport, screwing up air traffic control procedures.

At the time it was suggested that they were doing this simply to save money. It is this, rather than recent events, that would put me off.

The below information would have been applicable back when MAS encountered these issues at Heathrow. Things have changed since then, in particular radio communication requirements.

I am pretty sure they would have departed legally using an appropriate form of flight planning, approved by both the regulator and the airline. There are a few options made available which then allows the airline to maximise payload whilst ensuring the operation is safe but efficient. The final fuel uplift decision however shall always be the crews.

Increased fuel burn can occur on a long flight due to a multitude of reasons. The crew will try and resolve this situation as best they can whilst continuing on to destination. There may be a decision point on the flight plan where a decision on whether to continue or divert will be made.

At UK airports the statement "no delay expected" could mean that up to 20 minutes of holding may be required. That may well have played a part or holding in excess of 20 minutes would have further accentuated the problem.

If the crew find that fuel levels are getting towards the minimum required they will have a few choices available to them. Those choices will depend on the actual situation on that particular day and time. Weather, traffic and fuel levels will be the major factors on the crews decision on whether to divert or continue holding to ensure they land with fuel above the minimum stated in approved documentation. They will gather all the information and then make a decision.

If you are getting close to lower fuel levels then you would inform air traffic control accordingly. A PAN call indicates a level of urgency. A Mayday call indicates an emergency.

With the low fuel caution you will need to avoid large changes in pitch and power to avoid uncovering the fuel pumps.

Heathrow is busy for most of the day. The controllers do a fantastic job with the amount of traffic they handle. Local knowledge and looking at statistics can help an airline decide on the amount of contingency fuel they should load on board.

[Tinker2]

Just flew to Bali with Malaysian .... Old plane, nothing working.. Even Garuda is better than Malaysian

First time, last time !

[Eneukman]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Flown with them before and I'd fly with them again without hesitation. Lovely new Airbuses. Good food. Good service. Good prices.

Flew with them to Edinburgh return via KUL and AMS business class a few years ago. No complaints about them but I hate Schipol and both flights to and from Edinburgh with KLM were delayed.

Alan

[Fookhaht]

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

I thought about it.

They made the choice to fly over a war zone to save fuel costs when other airlines chose to avoid it.

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

I wouldn't fly them again.

[chiang mai]

Yes, without hesitation, they're a brilliant airline, new planes and attentive staff, what happened to those two flights was simply bad luck..

[mangoon]

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

I thought about it.

They made the choice to fly over a war zone to save fuel costs when other airlines chose to avoid it.

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

I wouldn't fly them again.

Flying an airplane is not like driving a car or bike. Pilot do not have the freedom to fly wherever they wanted to go. Flight plan must be filed to relevant countries and authorities over the path where the aircraft is flying. ATC of each respective countries has absolute control on which path each aircraft is flying. They controled the altitude, the airway and to certain extend the speed of the aircraft.

No exception in the case of MAS. They were instructed to fly at 33,000 feet when originally they were asking to fly at 35k ft. Along the same path, there are many more airlines flying at that time. That includes Lufthansa, Singapore and Air India among others. If you choose to avoid MAS because of the flight path, then be prepared to avoid flying with many other airlines or you can choose to use airlines that goes around the world to reach your destination. Journey like LHR-KUL that takes around 12hrs could end up with 24hrs with other airlines using different route. Your choice buddy... everyone has the freedom to choose.

As for me, i'll stick with MAS where possible as 90% of my journey with them is nothing but pleasant.

[thehelmsman]

No Way Jose, I've read all the "not their fault, could happen to any airline" it happened to MAL. Why the hell would you give your business to them........

[StreetCowboy]

 

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

...

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

...

 

You are joking, aren't you? Every day you are at the mercy of people who have skimped on maintenance, training, investment etc. whether as a passenger, customer or mere bystander. If you're that bothered about it, I recommend that you move to somewhere where the duty of care is more strictly enforced.

SC

[belg]

take a good insurance, you never know who might get rich upon your sadly derparture

but they you would have made super merit in thainess eyes

[Strangebrew]

Dumb question did you try Airasia? my question not yours Sir. Wanted that part clear.

[muffy]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ned]

I checked their prices for a Chiang Mai to Sydney ticket.......and they are a hell of a lot cheaper than the others. Last year they wanted about 36,000.....This year only 27,000 all up. Seat selection another 500 baht per flight. I'd consider that for the KL-Syd leg.

Bangkok Airways to Bkk then Malaysia Airlines to KL...... a couple of hours there for some satay and then to Syd. A pretty good deal I'd reckon.

I was wondering if anyone here has done it. Would I go through immigration in Chiang Mai and forget about my bag or would I have to go through immigration in Bangkok? ....in which case I'd have to collect my bags and then head back to the check in counter. That'd take away from any benefit of the cheaper ticket for me.

[mangoon]

I checked their prices for a Chiang Mai to Sydney ticket.......and they are a hell of a lot cheaper than the others. Last year they wanted about 36,000.....This year only 27,000 all up. Seat selection another 500 baht per flight. I'd consider that for the KL-Syd leg.

Bangkok Airways to Bkk then Malaysia Airlines to KL...... a couple of hours there for some satay and then to Syd. A pretty good deal I'd reckon.

I was wondering if anyone here has done it. Would I go through immigration in Chiang Mai and forget about my bag or would I have to go through immigration in Bangkok? ....in which case I'd have to collect my bags and then head back to the check in counter. That'd take away from any benefit of the cheaper ticket for me.

I think if you have a through ticket all the way from CNX to SYD with MAS, then you can do through check-in at CNX itself ie CNX-BKK with Bangkok Airways and BKK-SYD with MAS. You can also check in your baggage at CNX and just transit in BKK without having to re-do immigration and re-checkin your bag. But if you have a separate tickets, then it is different case already.

[Rooo]

Racist post removed.

[Ned]

Thanks Mangoon. Yes it'd be all on the one ticket. 27,000 sounds like a good deal.

[piersbeckett]

I have to say, I would even though it means travelling to KL because my last flight from UK with them was one of the best I've had if not the best; comfortable, good service, good food all at a most reasonable price

[Fookhaht]

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

I thought about it.

They made the choice to fly over a war zone to save fuel costs when other airlines chose to avoid it.

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

I wouldn't fly them again.

Flying an airplane is not like driving a car or bike. Pilot do not have the freedom to fly wherever they wanted to go. Flight plan must be filed to relevant countries and authorities over the path where the aircraft is flying. ATC of each respective countries has absolute control on which path each aircraft is flying. They controled the altitude, the airway and to certain extend the speed of the aircraft.

No exception in the case of MAS. They were instructed to fly at 33,000 feet when originally they were asking to fly at 35k ft. Along the same path, there are many more airlines flying at that time. That includes Lufthansa, Singapore and Air India among others. If you choose to avoid MAS because of the flight path, then be prepared to avoid flying with many other airlines or you can choose to use airlines that goes around the world to reach your destination. Journey like LHR-KUL that takes around 12hrs could end up with 24hrs with other airlines using different route. Your choice buddy... everyone has the freedom to choose.

As for me, i'll stick with MAS where possible as 90% of my journey with them is nothing but pleasant.

A number of airlines back then elected NOT to fly over the Ukraine because it was a war zone. My businesses is with them. Edited August 13, 2014 by Fookhaht

[fish fingers]

I'm a bad flyer and would consider malaysian airways - just bad luck imo, Thai Airways are more risky by far, they have been V lucky recently not to have a major accident and wd steer well clear if I were on anything other than the A380

Edited August 13, 2014 by fish fingers

[StreetCowboy]

 

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

I thought about it.

They made the choice to fly over a war zone to save fuel costs when other airlines chose to avoid it.

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

I wouldn't fly them again.

Flying an airplane is not like driving a car or bike. Pilot do not have the freedom to fly wherever they wanted to go. Flight plan must be filed to relevant countries and authorities over the path where the aircraft is flying. ATC of each respective countries has absolute control on which path each aircraft is flying. They controled the altitude, the airway and to certain extend the speed of the aircraft.

No exception in the case of MAS. They were instructed to fly at 33,000 feet when originally they were asking to fly at 35k ft. Along the same path, there are many more airlines flying at that time. That includes Lufthansa, Singapore and Air India among others. If you choose to avoid MAS because of the flight path, then be prepared to avoid flying with many other airlines or you can choose to use airlines that goes around the world to reach your destination. Journey like LHR-KUL that takes around 12hrs could end up with 24hrs with other airlines using different route. Your choice buddy... everyone has the freedom to choose.

As for me, i'll stick with MAS where possible as 90% of my journey with them is nothing but pleasant.

A number of airlines back then elected NOT to fly over the Ukraine because it was a war zone. My businesses is with them.

 

Do you know which those are? Did you know, prior to the shooting-down?

[khaosai]

I'm a bad flyer and would consider malaysian airways - just bad luck imo, Thai Airways are more risky by far, they have been V lucky recently not to have a major accident and wd steer well clear if I were on anything other than the A380

It's a great aircraft to travel on as a passenger but I am curious to why you would steer well clear of TG unless on the A380 ?

Edited August 14, 2014 by khaosai

[Fookhaht]

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

I thought about it.

They made the choice to fly over a war zone to save fuel costs when other airlines chose to avoid it.

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

I wouldn't fly them again.

Flying an airplane is not like driving a car or bike. Pilot do not have the freedom to fly wherever they wanted to go. Flight plan must be filed to relevant countries and authorities over the path where the aircraft is flying. ATC of each respective countries has absolute control on which path each aircraft is flying. They controled the altitude, the airway and to certain extend the speed of the aircraft.

No exception in the case of MAS. They were instructed to fly at 33,000 feet when originally they were asking to fly at 35k ft. Along the same path, there are many more airlines flying at that time. That includes Lufthansa, Singapore and Air India among others. If you choose to avoid MAS because of the flight path, then be prepared to avoid flying with many other airlines or you can choose to use airlines that goes around the world to reach your destination. Journey like LHR-KUL that takes around 12hrs could end up with 24hrs with other airlines using different route. Your choice buddy... everyone has the freedom to choose.

As for me, i'll stick with MAS where possible as 90% of my journey with them is nothing but pleasant.

A number of airlines back then elected NOT to fly over the Ukraine because it was a war zone. My businesses is with them.

Do you know which those are? Did you know, prior to the shooting-down?

Yes, because it is public knowledge via several websites which track airline routes. The specific airiness which elected NOT to fly that route were published in the news shortly after the shoot down.

No, because I had no reason to check it. Not flying that way recently.

So, what's your point?

[ManaoBkk]

Just flew them from BKK - KL - BKK - both ways the flights were empty - just about every passenger had a row of seats to themselves...

Food was crap and so was the in-flight entertainment...

Things obviously may differ on a long haul flight...

[Sparkles]

Think about bit for a moment; neither of the two recent major incidents were the airlines fault.

I thought about it.

They made the choice to fly over a war zone to save fuel costs when other airlines chose to avoid it.

Nobody endangers my life to save a few bucks.

I wouldn't fly them again.

Flying an airplane is not like driving a car or bike. Pilot do not have the freedom to fly wherever they wanted to go. Flight plan must be filed to relevant countries and authorities over the path where the aircraft is flying. ATC of each respective countries has absolute control on which path each aircraft is flying. They controled the altitude, the airway and to certain extend the speed of the aircraft.

No exception in the case of MAS. They were instructed to fly at 33,000 feet when originally they were asking to fly at 35k ft. Along the same path, there are many more airlines flying at that time. That includes Lufthansa, Singapore and Air India among others. If you choose to avoid MAS because of the flight path, then be prepared to avoid flying with many other airlines or you can choose to use airlines that goes around the world to reach your destination. Journey like LHR-KUL that takes around 12hrs could end up with 24hrs with other airlines using different route. Your choice buddy... everyone has the freedom to choose.

As for me, i'll stick with MAS where possible as 90% of my journey with them is nothing but pleasant.

A number of airlines back then elected NOT to fly over the Ukraine because it was a war zone. My businesses is with them.

And 16 airlines still did fly over a war zone at 30,000 ft

[tx22cb]

 

A number of airlines back then elected NOT to fly over the Ukraine because it was a war zone. My businesses is with them.

 

Do you know which those are? Did you know, prior to the shooting-down?

Hindsight is amazing - can make anyone seemingly prescient.

[Fookhaht]

Yes, hindsight allows us to make better future choices.

[triffid]

Although, If I did take them I'm sure I would be thinking.... thinking...

Thats just it mate, I would fly with them I guess but its just the mind games before getting on, I guess what happended was a freak accident but its always the what if.

I am sure they are a good airline especially by what some have said.

Anyway ended up getting a flight with Air India for 235 so went with that instead mainly on price.

Thanks for the replies all appreciated.

How (bad) was that Air India flight, by the way? I'm not being provocative, am genuinely curious.