Malaysian Air restrict checked baggage to 7kg on European routes!

[davidge]

http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/travel_advisory/limitation_checked_in_baggage.html?nomobredirect=true&mobile=false

 

7kg for Economy, 2 x 7kg for Business until further notice 'for safety reasons' as they have to fly a longer route to Europe due to conflict zones & there are strong headwinds.

 

They seem to want to completely destroy the little that is left of their reputation!

 

Surely it's possible to ensure enough fuel?

If not, you'd think it would be more sensible to sell fewer seats as the baggage policy is likely to stop far more people from flying with them anyway.

[DaffyDuck]

Well, so much for Malaysian Air. Good luck in 2016.

[Harvey707]

I'd imagine there will be chaos at Check Ins.   Even I have normally 14-15kgs checked

[gandalfsvl]

Yea and only Frankfurt and Paris not London, i doo believe it’s longer to London, to much fuel my ass.

Anyway they take it back today but I don´t think I chose them again.

[davidge]

Yes. A u-turn in under 24 hours

 

http://m.bangkokpost.com/news/817784?refer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FI8l10W47NF

 

What a shambles of an airline!

[semi-retired member]

Pity it didn't occur to Malaysian, to make an unscheduled splash-and-dash refueling-stop en-route instead, to cope with the strong headwinds ?

 

They might have avoided all this bad publicity !

[Harvey707]

Pity it didn't occur to Malaysian, to make an unscheduled splash-and-dash refueling-stop en-route instead, to cope with the strong headwinds ?

 

They might have avoided all this bad publicity !

 

You have any idea of Landing Fees for a A380   !!

At Heathrow per hour of parking its close to £40,000 and that was back in 2012

[semi-retired member]

You have any idea of Landing Fees for a A380   !!

At Heathrow per hour of parking its close to £40,000 and that was back in 2012

 

Fine, but the splash-&-dash would be somewhere in the Middle-East, not Heathrow.

 

And the further damage they've just done, to an already-seriously-damaged reputation, what does that cost them ? Tens of millions !

 

When things go wrong, whether it's stronger-than-usual head-wind or missed-connections, you expect a good airline to absorb the cost & make it right ! That's why they have a budget, for operational problems, like this one.

 

Or at least we used to, back when I was a senior financial-manager, at the world's then-largest holiday-airline, Britannia.

[Harvey707]

Fine, but the splash-&-dash would be somewhere in the Middle-East, not Heathrow.

 

And the further damage they've just done, to an already-seriously-damaged reputation, what does that cost them ? Tens of millions !

 

When things go wrong, whether it's stronger-than-usual head-wind or missed-connections, you expect a good airline to absorb the cost & make it right ! That's why they have a budget, for operational problems, like this one.

 

Or at least we used to, back when I was a senior financial-manager, at the world's then-largest holiday-airline, Britannia.

 

Indeed but dropping down into Dubai unlikely to be less of a cost or Abu Dhabi.  The airline cannot absorb stronger than anticipated head winds or side tracking strife zones when airtime is getting close to maximum.  It took 14 hours and 5 minutes for me KL to Heathrow January 2015 normal airtime normal head winds. Start adding only 2 hours for head winds/strife (and likely to be longer) and you start getting very close to maximum safe airtime with reserves

 

PS nothing wrong with Britannia had many an early charter trip to Europe on them !!

[joeaf]

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2016/01/09/malaysia-airlines-dry/

 

As of 1 Jan 2016, Malaysia Airlines is “dry” on flights of 3 hrs or less, even in biz class.  But since KUL-Europe flights are +3 hrs, the new "dry" policy should not apply, but the short haul BKK-KUL connection is only 2h 10m and will be dry.  Not my kind of airline.

[tiptopxl]

Fuel has never been so cheap in the last decade.

[Harvey707]

Fuel has never been so cheap in the last decade.

 

True but Malaysian are fighting to survive. Cutting Booze removes an enormous amount of weight to be be carried and fuelled accordingly.

Most of us who have been cash and carry and picked up trays of 24/36 cans suddenly realise how much they weigh

[semi-retired member]

Fuel has never been so cheap in the last decade.

 

True, but once the tanks are 100%-full, you can't load any more to cope with exceptionally-strong headwinds, whatever the price.

 

That's when you offload low-priority freight, such as time-insensitive bulk-post, or start reducing your passenger-loads, or in this case denying confirmed-passengers their confirmed hold-luggage-allowance, if only for a day to two, until the Marketing-department realise what awful publicity it's getting you !

 

 

One problem with these ultra-long-haul flights is that you're carrying that heavy fuel a long long way, just to burn at the very end of the journey, or in case you need to hold over your destination, or divert due to weather/traffic.  Not good for the profits !

[Harvey707]

True, but once the tanks are 100%-full, you can't load any more to cope with exceptionally-strong headwinds, whatever the price.

 

That's when you offload low-priority freight, such as time-insensitive bulk-post, or start reducing your passenger-loads, or in this case denying confirmed-passengers their confirmed hold-luggage-allowance, if only for a day to two, until the Marketing-department realise what awful publicity it's getting you !

 

 

One problem with these ultra-long-haul flights is that you're carrying that heavy fuel a long long way, just to burn at the very end of the journey, or in case you need to hold over your destination, or divert due to weather/traffic.  Not good for the profits !

 

What are normal reserves on say a wide Body Motor......??  2 hours low altitude flying ??  ( as in heavily stacked up)

[semi-retired member]

Good question, I've no idea what modern-day reserves are required, but suspect that different airlines have their own company-rules, wasn't there some bad-publicity about a certain European LCC setting them too low, and having to declare several low-fuel emergencies ?

 

Try-On Air, or something like that ?  Begorrah !

 

There have certainly been crashes, in the dim-and-distant past, while going-around for a third attempt to land and running-dry, in poor weather-conditions. I think one was a South American flight trying to land in New York ?  Hence the need for minimum-rules.

 

IIRC (and I may well be wrong) it used to be 30-minutes over the destination, plus the fuel required to get to the next-nearest alternative, which might be a problem if you're aiming for a Runway on a remote island mid-ocean and a long way from an alternate !

 

Then again, we sometimes used to encourage our pilots to load extra fuel, if it could be done safely & the price at the destination-airport was high, known as 'tankering' this would reduce the fuel-uptake required at the expensive rate. 

 

And we also had certain short-runway destinations where we'd take-off with less fuel, and to a 'tech-stop' at a longer-runway nearby, to fill-up for the remainder of the return-journey.