Malaysian16

Some interesting posts so far on what really is fantastic news, however...

Various BA folk had been spotted at KUL since november 2013 when it was first 'leaked' that BA were planning a return to KUL and even at that time BA had not planned to return to KUL before Spring 2015 - so reports/comments that the timing of BA's return could be related to recent events with MH is untrue.

It is however more relevant that KL is an important oneworld hub and thus it is timely that BA needs to tap into this market. BA has advised that it has not negotiated ANYTHING with MH in order to return to KUL as this would have been 'anti-competitive' (cited from BAs press release today) but could see BA and MH working together in future in linking and developing both their home hubs.

From this - I expect BA doesnt necessarily need to tag KUL with any other city as it would be far more cost effective for passengers for CGK, DPS, BWN, SGN, HAN, HKT, PEN, LGK, BKI, KCH, MYY, MNL, even SIN and beyond to PER, MEL, ADL, DRW, BNE, AKL and dare i say SYD, to simply transit on to MH metal using BA codes. MH on the other hand had already hinted as it entered oneworld that it was keen to work with Its european partners to open new Europe and transatlantic routes.

Whether or not MH reduces LHR would be interesting to see in light of this news - as it could potentially help MH solve a major issue in its fleet - suitable aircraft to operate into FRA and AMS - as an a380 could be diverted to both cities and thus allow MH to eliminate its 777 fleet which it is trying to retire. However this could only happen if a BA codeshare materialises and currently both carriers have not indicated that this will occur at this stage.

Good news for BA and MH travellers alike in my view... It will certainly see me on BA33 again having flown this route at least 4 times a year since 1981!

Leavinglondon

Indeed....and while I can see why people would speculate as to, say, the next new route or A380 route, it seems more than otiose to speculate here. BA have announced today that they will start a new route in 8 months... presumably they considered whether or not this could make money, whether it should use a hi-j 747, a mid-j 747, a 4 class 777, a 3 class 777, a 3 class 787 or wait for a 4 class 787. However - and no doubt after much analysis - they decided that a 4 class 777 to KL was viable and it seems more than ridiculous that people on here seem to think that there should be an add on, whether to Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh or most crazy of all Sydney. BA are soon to introduce an A380 on the route to Singapore and seem to be doing well on the 777 to Sydney, what possible reason could there be to change this?

T8191

Very interesting, and tempting. Now to try to persuade iWife to go to KL.

elitetraveler

I thought the 777-200s had 14 seats in F, not 12?

expatboy

MH would have to retime their BNE-KUL flight - it's currently an overnight leg to KL, timed to connect onto the daytime MH flights to LHR - so unless you want a 12+ hour layover in KL this will not work just yet. The other major capital cities (SYD, MEL, PER) have 2 or 3 daily flights which offer timings that would work. Fingers crossed...

morges1

Actually, Leavinglondon, as an earlier proponent of a CGK add on, on reflection you are right. What is needed is BA/MH codeshares - if MH725 at 1745 is made a daily flight, that would serve the purpose. The only problem is, and I have done a lot of KUL-CGKs in the last year or so, is that the 737-800s are always full and may not meet the need. I doubt that they would reroute an A330. However, CGK is booming so even that could happen.

While reflecting (a newly developed skill!!) that the concept of add ons was flawed, I now understood why MH, CX, QF etc don't make my home town, GVA, an add on despite the large number of OW Emeralds that hang around here and despite having aircraft hanging around LHR all day!!!! We were once visited by an A380 (during proving trials)!!!

Can I help you

The long range B777 needed to operate this route has a flight crew bunk unit within the First cabin so only 12 seats.

pauldb

Actually all we know is that BA have decided to send a 777 to KUL which happens to have time on the ground which could be used for an add-on.

No-one is suggesting that someone at BA will spot the gap and decide to do an add-on. The possibilities are that:
i) They've decided an add-on is not compelling
ii) They want to see how yields are to KUL before deciding on an add-on
iii) They want an add-on but are still negotiating with the destination or are planning a separate PR announcement.

So there's no reason to think an add-on would have to be a change of direction or be brought about by poor analysis.

TravellerFrequently

I remember going to KUL, for quite a variety of reasons, some of which I will share below () in October 1998.

I think I had not been a Silver Card Holder for very long, so it was good and exciting to use the lounge at Terminal 4, before heading to one of the pair of seats at the back of WT.

At the end of the holiday in Malaysia, I remembering staying at the Pan Pacific hotel, which is where the crew stayed. We ended up in the Monkey Bar, IIRC, which was in the hotel opposite and got chatting to the crew. Lots of drinks were had and one of the Flight Deck invited me to visit them during the flight, which I did. It was great to sit on the flight deck as we flew over India.

I remember running out of money and paying for drinks using my NatWest BA card. The bar staff assumed I was BA crew, so they gave me a discount!

Glad to see BA back on the route. Hope the yields are successful this time.

TravellerFrequently

At the back of F on the right hand side IIRC?

GodAtum

Wow fantastic news. I usually take EK every year but would not mind flying BA.

IAN-UK

Your reflections were no doubt skewed by the endless series of tag flights offered by the splendid Swissair between Geneva and Zurich. It was about the same era that saw most European carriers flying a combination of sectors along the BKK KUL SIN CGK corridor.

It's probably memories of this, and the South African and South American tags, that prompts commentators to urge carriers to grab the keys and make a quick shuttle down to Jakarta from Singapore (etc), rather than pay parking fees at SIN.....

KenJohn

What is the required crew rest period after a 12/13 hour flight from LHR to KUL? Will it be more than 24 hours.

I'm just thinking about the staffing levels required if BA were to consider an onward segment. If it is 24 hours or less than BA only need maintain two sets of crew overnight in KUL on any given day. If it is more than 24 hours then there will be three or more sets of crew.

By the way, as no one has even asked as yet, will this be a Mixed Fleet or Worldwide crew servicing the flight?

Can I help you

The crew will need a minimum of two nights in KL.

cosmo74

I flew with MH to KL at the end of last year in J, I thought the seats were perfectly fine for a day flight, although they probably wouldn't have been great on a night flight. Service was fantastic, probably the best I've had on a flight, my glass was never half empty before someone came round to say "Miss Cosmo74 would you care for some more champagne/wine", and they always knew what wine I was drinking, loved the satay trolley and the food overall was excellent, far superior to BA's offering. So, for me on a day flight I'd take MH, overnight, I think the BA seat might win.