What does the future hold for Malaysian airlines

[Ollie Menkens]

as we all now know Malaysian airlines has now lost two aircraft in a matter of months and many lives have been lost. Because of these two incidents surely Malaysian airlines Passenger numbers will plummet and many people will be too afraid to fly with them.

My question is what will Malaysian airlines do to try and get back to the standards it was at and stop the airline from going bankrupt?

[Rowan McKeever]

I was only saying to a colleague this morning how pleased I was the media hadn't felt it necessary to draw any link to MH370 whatsoever except, as she pointed out, to say that there was no link.

MH17 is something so far removed from the airline's control. It's an event that could easily have happened to any other carrier - yes, including Qantas because it could just as easily have happened over Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya etc. This point serves to reinforce my next point which is that, while definitely very tragic, this is also (touch wood it stays this way) an isolated event - how many flights (regardless of carrier, aircraft type, etc) pass over or near politically unstable nations every day, and how many of those are shot down.

MH didn't cause MH17, and the travelling public will no doubt realise that. So the effect on MH in that sense should be relatively limited, compared to MH370. The bigger issue is adjusting to the loss of two longhaul aircraft and what that will mean in terms of the services they're able to offer. That said, there are 777s about to come away from their current operators, such as EK, SQ, maybe CX, so the adjustment might be less temporary than first thought.

[Mike W]

Unbelievable bad luck for Malaysian. I hope there is not fallout from the paying passengers for this but I fear there may be judging by unsolicited (extremely small sample size) conversations with friends and colleagues

[Mackenzie Davis]

Even after MH370 and travelling on them little over 2 weeks ago from Brisbane on MH134/135, I was pleasantly surprised to see load factors above 90% on both flights, which says something that the general public isn't afraid to fly with them. Their safety record prior to the incidents in 2014 has been of excellent quality. I wish MH all the best for the future and hope that they can get over these hardships without a big financial hit.

[Montague S]

How are they going to go bankrupt when the holding companies are government owned? Please, just answer me that...

[Jaryd stock]

Just a question to throw out there, now that they have lost two 777's would that put a strain (fatigue life or mechanically) on other aircraft within the long haul fleet that have to make up the sudden loss of airframes?

[Rowan McKeever]

Can't really see how Jaryd... they still have to adhere to their maintenance schedules and I doubt there's all that much fat in the scheduling for the remaining longhaul fleet. If anything I would imagine MH would have to be reducing its longhaul flying to compensate for the reduction in capacity.

[Justin L]

Here's an AP article which addresses the question of this post.

[Michael Morrison]

Even though MH17 is of no fault by the airline it seems, I presume there will still be many of people that may not fly them because they are jinxed or things happen in 3 etc. So I am sure it will have an effect on confidence - at least in the short term and while MH370's fate is still not known.

[Kent Broadhead]

Originally Posted by Michael Morrison

or things happen in 3 etc.

A work colleague's in-laws believe this, and have forced their daughter and son-in-law to change flights off Malaysian. Mind you, for the extra $200 they are now on QF with a more direct flight and effectively adding a day to their holiday.

But it seems really stupid otherwise.

Read in the Fairfax press that one option is for the Government to take MH fully private. Of course another is just to let it fail but that would involve a massive loss of face.