will MH survive ?
 

Question has to be asked.


Some of the public will undoubtably avoid booking MH. It would only take a few % points for them to spiral into massive debt.


Think they are like QF International already, losing millions of dollars everyday.

They are already in debt...But no, this nor MH370 will help their cause :sad:

Think Swissair, or PanAm or even BCPA going further back into history. Unfortunately the litigation will be too much.
Unlikely to make it, going forward.

But the question is, considering this is a govt. owned airline, would the airline desolve and reopen again the next day as a new airline?

The question some will be asking is why the flight was over the area in the first place. Sure the airspace was open, but most other airlines were avoiding that area regardless. This might well be the straw which broke the camel's back.

Are you sure about this statement? I flew this same route twice in the past 10 days (not on MAS)

No! Not in its current form anyway.
Lockerbie was not really Pan am fault but was the last straw in it collapse.

I read a report two singapore airlines aircraft over ukraine enroute to europe at the same time.

Cant see the malaysian govt letting it fail completely, but it will probably have to be reborn,rebranded with possibly a new name/livery and reduced network?

Will be interesting how the insurance holds up. If they were flying in a active war zone the insurers may not be willing to cough up.

As per Crikey and the AFF forum which has a FlightRadar24 screenshot about that time, two SQ aircraft (inc an A380) and an AI aircraft were quite near to the MH forum.

All were presumably above the 32k NOTAM zone.

I think most will see MH as being very unlucky here, albeit bookings will undoubtedly suffer.

Note that various Govt entities own 70+% of MH, and I believe a fair chunk of MAHB (the owner of pretty much all the airports in the country). MH disappearing would be very detrimental to stopover tourism as well.

So I can't see MH disappearing, the Govt would have too much to lose.

Singapore & Malaysian are only two of how many airlines that could use this route?

Who then? Singapore? If another that only makes three.

From what I have read, most airlines were avoiding the area.

Most management these days are really good at saying "How much extra will it cost over time to fly around? Hang on, someone official is saying it is Ok to fly over, so that is what we will do & save the cash" I'm just surprised more weren't flying over the area.

Although it appears that several other airliners were on the same routing (BBC WS a few minutes ago) the insurers will be looking for reasons not to pay out on the hull loss. With the compensation they will have to pay, loss of future confidence and revenue, MH is not likely to survive in its current form. It will probably remain as a domestic and regional carrier but it's hard to imagine it remaining a serious contender on international routes after this, given the amount of competition on the routes it serves.
Its shares have lost 40% in the last few months and it was losing USD1.5 million a day, and that was before yesterday's event.

Who else was flying that route?
 

While I think the question about whether is was prudent to fly that route is a good question. And, I think the airline industry needs to better understand the distinction between who 'legally' controls airspace vs who 'actually' controls airspace. (We have been living with this friction in Cyprus for decades!!) I would like to point out that numerous airlines were using that route, Which punctures, to some degree, the notion that MH was negligent for being there.

Etihad, Emirates, KLM, Singapore and Malaysian - to name a few were using that airway. Eurocontrol was endorsing flights along that route (above FL320).

Therefore - it is easy to say with hindsight that it was a regrettable decision. But it was not an isolated or negligent decision.

OneWorld
 

Cursed World MH: Will they be asked to leave OneWorld?
Collateral damage to the other members can't be ignored.
MH is a PR disaster.

I remember an Impulse Airlines baggage handler asking after the planes hit if the world trade centre would survive .........

Winnerhofer.

I suppose it implies when you purchase a ticket on a code share flight. The same safety & or standards aren't necessarily applied.

Question: What makes it acceptable for one carrier to operate on a particular route when another in the same alliance determines it an unacceptable risk.

Answer: Risk versus financial reward

Back to the original question. Malaysian will survive because it is important to Malaysia Inc. The government will not let it fail...

Agreed with that point wholeheartedly.
Also, you can't compare Malaysian Airlines run of unfortunate luck with Pan Am for this reason - The tolerance and acceptance level for hull losses in Asia is higher than in Western countries. Even ICAO did some stats on that very topic some years ago. From memory, as an example, ICAO found that USA citizens accepted around 1.4 losses per year as 'acceptable'. People's confidence in air travel didn't change much. Anything more than that and the citizens were jumping up and down! Australia's tolerance is even lower, meaning an accident say like with Lockhart River, a Metro with around 15 pax or something equivalent was about as high as people would accept. Then you had statistics for Asia where the tolerance was much higher. Indonesia was around 2.5 complete hull losses per year, and the punters weren't overly concerned. It was an interesting research paper, I might be able to rustle it up from somewhere. And keep in mind these stats are from memory and some time ago, so they may be a little inaccurate, but Asia certainly had a greater acceptance of airline crashes than western countries. I guess my point is that I think, or at least hope that MH survives. It would appear that at this point in time the hull losses of two 777's is a really really bad run of luck. There were other carriers operating along the same route in that area of airspace who also believed that 32 000 feet was indeed safe.

Talking about failures, what were the Captains plans if an emergency descent or drift down were required in that particular airspace?

Totally unacceptable risk in my opinion.

Hoss,
It's got nothing to do with the Captains plans!
What was the Company's plan if an emergency descent or drift down was required!