With two major accidents in one year, Malaysia Airlines' future in doubt. - Polidicks

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/N805PA-A310-PanAm-PIK-July89.jpg[/img] [quote]Shares in Malaysia Airlines closed down 11% in Malaysia following the crash of flight MH17 in Ukraine on route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Some Asian stock markets also ended the day lower on fears the crash may intensify political tensions between the West, Ukraine and Russia. This is the second catastrophe to hit the Malaysian airline this year after flight MH370 disappeared in March. Questions are being asked about whether the carrier can now survive. "Even if this is pure coincidence, it's never happened in history that a flag carrier has seen two wide-body aircraft disappearing in a few months," said Bertrand Grabowski, head of aviation at DVB Bank, which acts as a banker to Malaysia Airlines. "The support from the government needs to be more explicit and perhaps more massive."[/quote] [quote]Speaking to the BBC's World Service, Mohshin Aziz, an investment analyst at Maybank in Kuala Lumpur, said the challenges now facing Malaysia Airlines were "insurmountable". Without significant funding, he said the airline would not survive beyond a year. But even if the airline was to secure financing, questions about its longer-term viability remain, analysts said.[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28370863]**SOURCE**[/url] I'm getting Pan Am vibes in terms of accidents happening so close to eachother.

yea people are going to avoid this airline after these two events.

I think people will kind of understand that this last event was out of Malaysia Airlines hands. Or at least I hope so.

Last I checked that second incident wasn't an "accident".

[QUOTE=LarparNar;45430009]I think people will kind of understand that this last event was out of Malaysia Airlines hands. Or at least I hope so.[/QUOTE] People are paranoid when it comes to air disasters. People who don't like flying to begin with will avoid Malaysia Airlines. I think what I would do if I was their CEO in this position, I'd try and find the money to change the apearance of the company logo, the planes paint scheme, and change the name to Malaysia Air, or Air Malaysia, or something similar. Anything to distance myself from what the company is now. When people see this: [IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/7lgevvu.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] They associate it with MH370 and MH17. They need to make it so people don't think of disaster when they see their planes. That requires a total overhaul of the company but it sounds like they don't have the money for that.

[QUOTE=certified;45430011]Last I checked that second incident wasn't an "accident".[/QUOTE] It's more suitable to call them both major disasters

Korean Air was able to survive through their multiple air disasters but I'm assuming their financial situation was better off. Korean Air, from what I know, is one of the better airlines out there today.

It's annoying as fuck because media is just putting it as ANOTHER PLANE CRASH when its PLANE SHOT DOWN

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45430130]It's annoying as fuck because media is just putting it as ANOTHER PLANE CRASH when its PLANE SHOT DOWN[/QUOTE] Planes getting shot down is really shitty because it can really happen to any company regardless of their track record. It's not Malaysia Airlines fault that they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the coincidence with MH370 happening not long ago means the only real international reputation they have is being the Airline that gets you killed. That's not really their fault in both situations arguably but they have to live up to it and fix it if they want to survive.

Was it getting shot down confirmed or is it just a rumor? Either way, this is a really stupid reason for their shares to suddenly drop 11%, especially when there was clearly foul play at hand. like what are they supposed to do, suddenly engage in evasive maneuvers in a passenger jet?

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;45430199]Was it getting shot down confirmed or is it just a rumor?[/QUOTE] Confirmed shot down by pro-russian seperatists.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;45430009]I think people will kind of understand that this last event was out of Malaysia Airlines hands. Or at least I hope so.[/QUOTE] They didn't ask for it but they did fly over a warzone which another airplane was just shot down at high altitude a few days earlier. If they wanna survive they need to reinvent there airline culture and put safety as there highest priority.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;45430199]Was it getting shot down confirmed or is it just a rumor? Either way, this is a really stupid reason for their shares to suddenly drop 11%, especially when there was clearly foul play at hand. like what are they supposed to do, suddenly engage in evasive maneuvers in a passenger jet?[/QUOTE] I think a small amount of blame can be attributed to Malaysia Airlines for not avoiding the eastern Ukraine like quite a few other airlines have, especially after military planes were shot down in the region recently.

-snip- RT source didn't make any sense, putin plz.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45430291]I think a small amount of blame can be attributed to Malaysia Airlines for not avoiding the eastern Ukraine like quite a few other airlines have, especially after military planes were shot down in the region recently.[/QUOTE] As far as I know the only Airlines that were avoiding the area were US because they were told not to go through there. Lots of other airlines were flying over because they were told it would be safe to fly above the no fly area. No one expected anyone to fire a SAM at a commercial liner. As soon as word broke about the crash a lot of airlines did emergency diverts to avoid the area.

Maybe they will add more leg space to get people back.

I think the second flight was totally their fault. Who in their right mind would fly a passenger airplane over a war zone?

[QUOTE=cqbcat;45430446]I think the second flight was totally their fault. Who in their right mind would fly a passenger airplane over a war zone?[/QUOTE]Civilian airliners fly very predictable, publically accessible routes at high altitudes. Nobody usually expects someone to be stupid enough to either mistake one for a military aircraft, or to risk the backlash.

I'm reluctant to even say the first flight is any their fault, considering the three Mohammeds on board with stolen passports. When is an air crash even directly the fault of the company owning the aircraft anyway?

[QUOTE=cqbcat;45430446]I think the second flight was totally their fault. Who in their right mind would fly a passenger airplane over a war zone?[/QUOTE] Russian "totally not trained millitary operatives with their markings off" rebels told them to stay above 30 thousand feet, they were flying at 34 thousand feet, well above the no fly zone. And the buk was looking for a goddamn turboprop cargo plane that couldn't have flown at more then 20 thousand feet, even lower if it was carrying anything.

[QUOTE=OvB;45430058]People are paranoid when it comes to air disasters. People who don't like flying to begin with will avoid Malaysia Airlines. I think what I would do if I was their CEO in this position, I'd try and find the money to change the apearance of the company logo, the planes paint scheme, and change the name to Malaysia Air, or Air Malaysia, or something similar. Anything to distance myself from what the company is now. When people see this: [IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/7lgevvu.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] They associate it with MH370 and MH17. They need to make it so people don't think of disaster when they see their planes. That requires a total overhaul of the company but it sounds like they don't have the money for that.[/QUOTE] Actually, they've been using a new paint scheme on certain planes: [IMG]http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/malaysia-a380-painted-1-620x413.jpg[/IMG] If they're able to secure more funds to repaint the remaining fleet, it might help with their image. Additionally, they could go the way of ValuJet and try rebranding entirely.

[QUOTE=racerfan;45430538]Actually, they've been using a new paint scheme on certain planes: [IMG]http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/malaysia-a380-painted-1-620x413.jpg[/IMG] If they're able to secure more funds to reaping the remaining fleet, it might help with their image. Additionally, they could go the way of ValuJet and try rebranding entirely.[/QUOTE] I must say, that new paint scheme is beautiful.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45430503]I'm reluctant to even say the first flight is any their fault, considering the three Mohammeds on board with stolen passports. When is an air crash even directly the fault of the company owning the aircraft anyway?[/QUOTE] Generally when they poorly maintain them, which a few disasters have resulted from. Most seem to be freak accidents, engineering defects, or pilot error though.

If it's confirmed to be a missile, then maybe they should also consider suing Russia damages, since Russia is the one supplying this technology. If possible, sue the rebels too, if you can pin it on a single coordinated group (such as the Donetsk People's Republic for example). Both of their actions lead to extreme damages to the company's image, resulting in loss of profit and possibly requiring them to spend money on rebranding.

[QUOTE=racerfan;45430538]Actually, they've been using a new paint scheme on certain planes: [IMG]http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/malaysia-a380-painted-1-620x413.jpg[/IMG] If they're able to secure more funds to reaping the remaining fleet, it might help with their image. Additionally, they could go the way of ValuJet and try rebranding entirely.[/QUOTE] That paint scheme is good but I think they should drop the "lines" and change the logo.

i am now avoiding all malaysians as well

[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45430130]It's annoying as fuck because media is just putting it as ANOTHER PLANE CRASH when its PLANE SHOT DOWN[/QUOTE] Which imo is a bit more worrying, since people actually shot down a plane from the sky, and whoever did that is in serious heat.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45430949]A paint scheme won't make people afraid of them say "Oh, they repainted, NOW the planes are safe!" They'd need a total overhaul. I mean do people even see the plane when they buy tickets? (honest question, I'm a flying virgin)[/QUOTE] No, but they usually advertise their company identity everywhere. I don't think it would be as easy to completely rebrand themselves here like ValuJet did, since they're the main airline for their country and their name evokes that. Every other name I can think of that would still show that would be pretty close to the original. ValuJet was a smaller airline that really just did it's own thing, and rebranded itself as AirTran. The paint scheme change does help though, especially since it looks very noticeably different from the original (such as the lack of red.) I admit you are right about the name still, but I'm not sure how they could change that easily.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;45430446]I think the second flight was totally their fault. Who in their right mind would fly a passenger airplane over a war zone?[/QUOTE] Pretty much everyone [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28364306[/url]

The first one wasn't even the airlines fault though really, there was apparently nothing wrong with the plane I thought the theory at the moment was that the pilot pretty much premeditated this as a glorified suicide attempt which is hardly malaysia airlines fault