FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Malaysia Airlines Suspension of KUL - Los Angeles route
Old Jan 28, 2014 | 1:15 pm
  #11  
bzcat
20 Countries Visited
1M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat, DL, AS, UA, IHG Plat
Posts: 2,594
Originally Posted by coolfish1103
They should have just stayed on KUL-TPE-LAX v.v. cause customers will move to them after they join oneworld. Competing on KUL-NRT-LAX v.v. against it's own alliance member like JAL and AA makes no sense at all (plus there are more carriers flying this route). If EVA can increase to 3 daily after MH took off, I see no reason why MH cannot stay on this route being the sole oneworld operator.
I'm just speculating but I think the real reason why MH switched from TPE to NRT is because SQ did it first... MH cannot lose face and stay in the less glamorous TPE sector for their flagship TPAC LAX flight. Political decisions made by the airlines are often not very rational and this is just another example.

Here were all the known facts before MH pulled the plug on KUL-TPE-LAX and switched to KUL-NRT-LAX:

1. Taiwan was on the verge of getting in on the US-Visa waiver program when they pulled the plug on TPE-LAX. Travel demand between TPE and USA was about to significantly expand.
2. CI and BR were on the verge of being accepted to Skyteam and Star, which would leave room for an OneWorld airline on TPE-LAX.
3. NRT-LAX was already served by 2 sets of home-nation airlines (AA+JL, UA+NH) that had hubs on both ends. And the US Govt was in the process of granting them anti-trust immunity for metal-neutral revenue sharing!
4. And there was already a 3rd entrenched US carrier -DL!
5. And a well established 5th freedom operator - KE!

But mortal enemy SQ just started NRT-LAX and was switching to A380 - MH could not let this go unanswered!

Last edited by bzcat; Jan 28, 2014 at 1:22 pm
bzcat is offline