Unlike you Usman, we do have a life rather than just sitting in front of the computer.Let's dissect your arguments shall we?
These foreign airlines were rescued on a bonafied case. In MAS it is an ethical and moral issue, the guilt the govt. felt after doing what they did to japerdise the livelihood of 25000 people and the looming election. The least the govt. could do was not to pay them the RM1.6 billion at more than twice the share value after all the damages they had inflicted to MAS and use that monies instead to help the airline recover
Bonafide case Usman? So it's okay if the shareholders of the airline (which some happens to be majority owned by their state governments) to bail out their enterprises, with some of them time & time again, but not Malaysia with Malaysia Airlines?What a sham!Double standards! .
However,I do agree with you on why they had to pay that idiot (Mr 019) a whopping Rm1.6 Billion when the money could have been used to shaft his posterior to kingdom come!
PILOST: "MH has a 'moral' & legal obligation since it's inception is to provide the nation a tool for the nation's integration policies & transportation needs even if it means making a loss as the benefits outweighs the loss
Not entirely. In the 70's there was no loss as the local profitable routes always covers the less profitable. This was an agreement with Sabah and Sarawak to service their hinterlands. But for the last 15 years the profit turns to loss for the domestic routes for some obvious reasons.
And along come Air Asia to prove them otherwise even at less than half the fare.
The loss at the international level is an entirely another matter.
Usman my young & naive proverbial 'frog under the coconut shell', any MAS employee worth their salt will know the 5 corporate charter of MAS when it was formed.Let me list you the 2 most important ones:
1:To provide the nation with a mode of transportation at minimal cost to the public, which shall promote the integration of the nation especially between East & West Malaysia, & to the world.
2.To provide Malaysians with jobs.
You will now appreciate that effectively, even when MAS was corporatised, the Govt had a RM1 'Golden Share' which was to safeguard the policies set by the Govt when MAS was formed from the breakup of MSA (yes I do remember those days
)
As for the argument of cost, let's not kid ourself here Usman,
Air Asia is a low cost carrier .AK works on a different cost set up.MH is a full blown airline, complete with meals on wheels (part of the ticket price), golden lounges etc. etc. & the perks that the public expect from it.AK's ticket prices are advertised from a low of Rmxxx but the public now fully understands that marketing strategies permit AK to charge a full fare (which sometimes cost as much as MH!)
Again Usman, you're pulling wool under our eyes here!At the end of the day AK's market strategies are based on the Low Cost Operators similiar to Easyjet,Virgin Blue & Southwest.Comparing AK & MH on cost will be like comparing apples & oranges.
Oh yeah, for those of you who are still on the topic.Please refer to my earlier postings.AK is well & truly a force to be reckoned with in the region.It certainly riled some feathers in SQ's top management
For those of you who harbour a thought to be with AK, perseverance is the key.At the moment MH & AK are desperately trying to fill their pilot requirements.Both companies are currently tied to an obligation to hire locals first (rightfully).However when push come to shove, I do believe both airlines will employ expats.When? I wouldn't know.However candidates should be aware that AK might not be able to offer a decent 'market salary' as this will effect their cost.As the saying goes "Caveat Emptor!"
Safe Flying All!
PILOST.