Why do people still avoid Malaysia Airlines?

[trippin_the_rift]

For me I will fly them if the price is right (I did last week and might even do so this weekend on this basis), but they have screwed Enrich to such an extent that all else being equal I prefer other carriers whose frequent flyer programs are not so stingy.

For the majority Australians - Enrich isn't a concern as they will credit MH flights to QF or CX. At the other end of the spectrum for hardcore frequent flyers - MH has excellent status runs for QF members.

For me personally, I won't pay the QF premium internationally, so MH represents an effective way to get Oneworld benefits via QFF membership at a fraction of the QF price. There is no revenue loss to QF since I would not consider QF anyway.

 

[davidj]

Many people still think Malaysia has a safety issue because of two incidents.

For those of us less gullible, I think their service standards have declined since 2014, and their network was significantly implicated, which is further driving pax to the competition (SIA, THA).

For many Australians, transit to the EU is important, and bar LHR, that option is gone with MAS.

 

[clifford]

For me personally, I won't pay the QF premium internationally, so MH represents an effective way to get Oneworld benefits via QFF membership at a fraction of the QF price. There is no revenue loss to QF since I would not consider QF anyway.

Absolutely agree with you. MH J class on the 333's is pretty good, and compares quite favourably with the QF offering at a fraction of the price.

One might be a bit nutty to credit some MH flights to the QF FF program, as they would only earn as economy, but it's fine with the BAEC program, which I subscribe to. Can earn OneWorld Emerald at a fraction of the cost compared with the QF FFP.

 

[AndyMelb]

I use MH traveling from between Oz & Asia. J and premium economy are good. The food and staff are generally good. Had a few flights cancelled which was annoying. Enrich is not what it used to be, and many of the offers are Malaysia/ Asia specific.

 

[UP4014]

Some other airlines were avoiding flying over the Ukrainian trouble and another aircraft that disappears completely, neither a good look for Malaysian airline management.

An airline can say sorry and beg you to return and that's great, I love an airline who does that. And then you know what, I can go and book a ticket with an airline that doesn't have to.

 

[TonyHancock]

I have flown MH more since the incidents than before. Price was and remains the prime driver. The hard product is not too bad at all, and of course there are the satay sticks!!

 

[Archphoto]

This is an interesting question and one that I've thought about for quite a while since the MH17 & MH370 incidents.

Flying through a "war zone" is certainly not the greatest of decisions, have had flights re-route several times previously due to such "tensions". On its own, probably not enough of a reason to decide against flying with them, but it certainly made me think about where the company placed itself, and what their reasoning was (seriously, you need to be told to avoid a dangerous area???) - profit before safety did spring to mind.

The second, extremely unfortunate and in all seriousness how can an airline tackle such a (suspected) rogue pilot? We saw similar with Germanwings Flight 9525 and I'm not sure how one can tackle such events; how does one read the mind of a pilot who is intent on undertaking such plans?

What really turned me off was the entire "investigation" and the appearance of a "cover-up" to protect themselves; conflicting interviews and what certainly appeared to me, to be not only a total lack of empathy but also not having any idea of how to handle the situation from the outset. Naturally, others may view the incident and subsequent events and investigation differently.

For me, it's not so much that something could happen - it could happen on *any* flight with *any* airline, rather it is how this particular airline handled this incident (in addition to MH17) with regard to the families, friends and colleagues who were left hanging with no apparent support whatsoever, as they appeared to bicker amongst themselves in an attempt to deflect blame.

I had the opportunity to fly business class BKK-KUL-ADL return for $350 not long after MH370; it took me 3 seconds to decide not to risk it - I didn't want my family to be faced with the torment that those involved with the former flight were facing.

Stupid? Unrealistic? Paranoid? Perhaps, but my confidence with MH has definitely been shaken by both these events and it will take quite some time before I contemplate flying with them any time soon, if at all. Of course, others may see it differently - happy travels to them all.

 

[clifford]

What really turned me off was the entire "investigation" and the appearance of a "cover-up" to protect themselves; conflicting interviews and what certainly appeared to me, to be not only a total lack of empathy but also not having any idea of how to handle the situation from the outset.

I think that this would apply to several Asian airlines, including Thai.

Just my opinion, though...

 

[Cossie]

I think that this would apply to several Asian airlines, including Thai.

Just my opinion, though...

Exactly, the SilkAir crash in Indonesia was a bit iffy as well, wasn't it?

SilkAir Flight 185 - Wikipedia

 

[UP4014]

Exactly, the SilkAir crash in Indonesia was a bit iffy as well, wasn't it?

SilkAir Flight 185 - Wikipedia

And Egypt Air

 

[dajop]

Flying through a "war zone" is certainly not the greatest of decisions, have hd flights re-route several times previously due to such "tensions". On its own, probably not enough of a reason to decide against flying with them, but it certainly made me think about where the company placed itself, and what their reasoning was (seriously, you need to be told to avoid a dangerous area???) - profit before safety did spring to mind..

This is a difficult one. Taking a hardline on airlines because of this decision to fly through that zone, should eliminate other (luckier) airlines as well, including those who were only a few minutes of being shot down (SQ, AI) or still flying similar flight paths earlier that same day (LH, KL + others). (and curiously the co-owned AF was avoiding the area, but KL not). But I get that is is an accumulation of factors (as always) that make people more concerned than isolated events.

 

[dxwell]

the differences between animals and humans being mainly our logical reasoning, plenty of evidence that emotions trumps logic more than vice versa

I think this is what makes us human: we do totally illogical things such as fall in love, infatuate with red wine, obsess over perfecting a recipe, book flights because we enjoy flying. I'm ok with this.

 

[JohnK]

I don't avoid MH but try to limit the number of flights I'll do with them and not confortable flying them long haul. All my flights with them have been short haul.

Their catering in short haul is not really up to scratch. I don't drink alcohol on all flights but be nice to have a choice especially in business. There has also been a noticeable drop in food catering on those short hauls. Curries, satay sticks, curry pies and sandwiches/wraps don't do it for me.

I'm also not sure the airline is managed effectively. Too much government intervention and admittedly they had a lot of bad luck with the 2 aircraft losses but the way they handled both situations was poor.

 

[serfty]

I'm also not sure the airline is managed effectively. Too much government intervention and admittedly they had a lot of bad luck with the 2 aircraft losses but the way they handled both situations was poor.

I disagree - they learned from the first one and as a result by all reports handled the second far better.

I'll fly MH anytime it's convenient and suites; I am not concerned any more than when I may be flying on any other airline.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I disagree - they learned from the first one and as a result by all reports handled the second far better.

I'll fly MH anytime it's convenient and suites; I am not concerned any more than when I may be flying on any other airline.

I’m not convinced they handed MH17 any better than 370. Denying any responsibility for the choice of flight path, dragging victims through lengthy court cases, mocking suggestions about intelligence sources. None of those give confidence that lessons have been learned.

It continues today with MH claiming they must be doing things right because the load factors prove it... but that doesn’t seem to consider the effect of heavy discounting in a price sensitive market. There’s still, supposedly, a missing cargo manifest for 370.

Where is the evidence the culture has changed? That lessons have been learned? That the airline is now doing everything they can to avoid another incident?

The argument that others were also doing something unsafe doesn’t absolve responsibility.

 

[p--and--t]

I guess I am a bit different to several responders here.

While I absolutely am not a very frequent flyer in the league of many on here I have travelled to 70+ countries on 32 or so airlines and have seen a lot that convinces me that the overriding fact is all perceptions of safety are subjective and all journeys are not the same.

Each flight is operated by a crew that changes usually by sector and made up by a number of individuals of varied capabilities who have good days and bad days.

Regardless of how young or old an aeroplane frame is, thorough or lax maintenance regimes are, mechanical apparatus fails (QF32, QF30), computers have glitches and operations rely on thousands of imperfect backend personnel (UA811)

Even if I'm flying on the safest aircraft with the safest airline with the most competent crew, an idiot can cross the runway in front of our flight in the process of takeoff and landing.

I have personally observed safety issues on LH and EK whereas I have not personally seen any on MH.

I know from the media there have been very serious issues in the past and allegedly still are occasionally with TT but not personally observed them.

QZ8501 & AF447 dropped into the sea with a total loss of life, but 10s of thousands of passengers fly with them every day unscathed and seemingly without the ongoing media barrage that MH has suffered.

I regularly read at least weekly of EK unpredictable manoeuvres and near misses at various airports around the world.

There are plenty of examples of pilot error causing incidents minor to fatal in almost every airline.

But will any of those things happen to me on my flight today? And what is the likelihood given the stats that show being driven to the airport is many times more unsafe than flying on any airline.

At any minute of any day of any week there are of the order of 1,000,000 passengers sitting in an airline seat flying through our skies.

My rational mind says what will happen will happen regardless of my choices so just book it.

My less rational mind overrides that occasionally and says perhaps I won't fly GA or SU or JS or most of the intra-African airlines that aren't OW or *A.

If MH have a $400 return airfare to anywhere in Asia again next week, I will probably buy it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I guess I am a bit different to several responders here.

While I absolutely am not a very frequent flyer in the league of many on here I have travelled to 70+ countries on 32 or so airlines and have seen a lot that convinces me that the overriding fact is all perceptions of safety are subjective and all journeys are not the same.

Each flight is operated by a crew that changes usually by sector and made up by a number of individuals of varied capabilities who have good days and bad days.

Regardless of how young or old an aeroplane frame is, thorough or lax maintenance regimes are, mechanical apparatus fails (QF32, QF30), computers have glitches and operations rely on thousands of imperfect backend personnel (UA811)

Even if I'm flying on the safest aircraft with the safest airline with the most competent crew, an idiot can cross the runway in front of our flight in the process of takeoff and landing.

I have personally observed safety issues on LH and EK whereas I have not personally seen any on MH.

I know from the media there have been very serious issues in the past and allegedly still are occasionally with TT but not personally observed them.

QZ8501 & AF447 dropped into the sea with a total loss of life, but 10s of thousands of passengers fly with them every day unscathed and seemingly without the ongoing media barrage that MH has suffered.

I regularly read at least weekly of EK unpredictable manoeuvres and near misses at various airports around the world.

There are plenty of examples of pilot error causing incidents minor to fatal in almost every airline.

But will any of those things happen to me on my flight today? And what is the likelihood given the stats that show being driven to the airport is many times more unsafe than flying on any airline.

At any minute of any day of any week there are of the order of 1,000,000 passengers sitting in an airline seat flying through our skies.

My rational mind says what will happen will happen regardless of my choices so just book it.

My less rational mind overrides that occasionally and says perhaps I won't fly GA or SU or JS or most of the intra-African airlines that aren't OW or *A.

If MH have a $400 return airfare to anywhere in Asia again next week, I will probably buy it.

All good points. But you say you haven’t seen any safety issues on MH. How about flying over a war zone where you knew, or ought to have know, that multiple aircraft were shot down over the preceding days?

You say the likelihood of something happening is pretty rare. That’s correct. But how likely is it that two incidents would occur just a couple of months apart? To me that speaks volumes. Instead of taking anything from MH370, and doubling, or tripling their efforts for future safe flight, they let the plane fly over a zone they knew, or ought to have known, had aircraft shot down in the preceding days.

Where was the abundance of caution?

If they didn’t take any lessons away from 370 to apply to future operations, what have they taken away from 17?

If you believe what MH says to the press, they seem satisfied they are doing a good job simply because their loadings are high. No explanation that they have changed anything on an operations front.

Maybe the change of government will lead to a change in this area too. But so far it’s been pretty silent.

 

[p--and--t]

All good points. But you say you haven’t seen any safety issues on MH. How about flying over a war zone where you knew, or ought to have know, that multiple aircraft were shot down over the preceding days?

You say the likelihood of something happening is pretty rare. That’s correct. But how likely is it that two incidents would occur just a couple of months apart? To me that speaks volumes. Instead of taking anything from MH370, and doubling, or tripling their efforts for future safe flight, they let the plane fly over a zone they knew, or ought to have known, had aircraft shot down in the preceding days.

Where was the abundance of caution?

If they didn’t take any lessons away from 370 to apply to future operations, what have they taken away from 17?

If you believe what MH says to the press, they seem satisfied they are doing a good job simply because their loadings are high. No explanation that they have changed anything on an operations front.

Maybe the change of government will lead to a change in this area too. But so far it’s been pretty silent.

If I was to let the MH17 incident influence my carrier selection then i wouldnt be flying with SQ or LH or half a dozen other significant carriers because many airlines were flying the same route several times per day up until minutes before MH17 was shot down and all are guilty of exactly what you are attributing to MH.

There can be no logical correlation between “preventative” measures for MH370 and MH17 as they are entirely isolated incidents of different causes in different parts of the world. One (allegedly - yet to be confirmed) caused by a deranged pilot (and MH are but one of maybe half a dozen airlines caught by that problem) and the other an unexpected shooting down of one passenger plane when dozens had passed by in the previous 24-72hrs.

Regardless of which order the MH events occurred and which airline was involved i don't believe anything would have changed to prevent the other.

I do take your point 100% on the abysmal handling of events and ducking and weaving by officials subsequent to both MH events, very poor form and a stain on their company’s reputation and their country’s political heirachy.

It doesn't however directly lead me to a conclusion that their normal operations are inherently less safe than many other airlines i have travelled on including those i have not yet personally witnessed unsafe procedures.

What we both don't know about what I suspect goes on occasionally under the covers of every single one of the airlines we fly with, if known & acknowledged, would deter us from ever flying again.

For example I have observed an instagram account of a pilot for one well known and respected middle east carrier servicing Aussie ports that appears to show him drinking copious amounts of alcohol on an almost daily basis including pre-flight and on his layovers. How do you know if he is at the pointy end of your next flight and how fit is he to take command of the flight?

 

[p--and--t]

MEL_Traveller

BTW not trying to pick a fight. Just articulating my perspective.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My point linking the two incidents is that you’d *think*... after one accident the airline would be on high alert and keen to protect its reputation. You’d *think* they’d be taking a close look at their operations to make sure everything was 100% ok to make sure nothing else could go wrong. A wake up call if you like.

That didn’t happen after MH370. They didn’t sit down and think ‘are we doing everything we can to stop something else happening’. They completely missed the wake up call! They didn’t sit down and say ‘ok, is our maintenance as best it can be? Are our other operations as safe as they can be?’

I accept the point that other airlines flew over the same area. But that’s not an excuse! Just because everyone else is speeding on the roads doesn’t excuse your speeding if something goes wrong and you’re in an accident.

And the same applies here. Just because everyone else was doing the wrong thing doesn’t excuse your liability if things go wrong. (Not to mention MH made no reference to the airlines not flying over the area.)

And to sue for negligence, you have to show harm. Other airlines didn’t cause harm to their passengers.

The culture... complacency, denial, arrogance? Has any of that changed? It may have, but the airline doesn’t seem to have conveyed that in a manner that’s satisfactory. All they need to do is come out and say ‘we’ve doubled down on checking our maintenance records. We’ve doubled down on our operations to ensure we never fly over dangerous situations. We’ve doubled down to ensure our training is the best it can be.’ (etc)

Culture is far more than the skills and capability of the pilots. If an airline sends its plane into danger, it’s possible no pilot can save it.