This was posted 9 years 8 months 21 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Malaysia Airlines - SYD to KUL $520 Return, MEL to KUL $506 Return

1200
Malaysia Airlines - SYD to KUL $520 Return, MEL to KUL $506 ReturnAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
Pcheap0 on 06/08/2014 - 11:11 malaysiaairlines.com (4435 clicks)
Last edited 09/08/2014 - 12:54 by 1 other user
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Flying Malaysia Airlines - SYD to KUL $520 rtn, MEL to KUL $506 rtn

Pretty much any date except around Christmas and New Year.

Also available for those of you with friends or relatives in Singapore/Malaysia wanting to visit Oz.

SIN to SYD return around A$450
SIN to MEL return around A$435
KUL to SYD/MEL return around A$473

Please, no comments about MH370/MH17. Flying is the safest form of transportation and if you are irrational and choose not to fly Malaysia Airlines, then that's your prerogative.

Malaysia Airlines is also only one of seven airlines to have a 5 star rating awarded by Skytrax

I personally will fly with whatever is the cheapest oneworld airline (as I am QFF Platinum) and have booked and will be flying Malaysia airlines four times in the next year. And no, it is unlikely they will fold - the Malaysian government would not allow it, especially because they are mostly government owned. Heck, the Malaysian Airlines 777 and KLIA are featured on their currency.

Edit - as per comments, may be a little cheaper @ travel.com.au

Update 8 Aug: Note that MAS is in the progress of being restructured and privatised

Travel Airfare Asia Malaysia Singapore

Related Stores

Malaysia Airlines
Malaysia Airlines

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 11:15
    +21

    I'm surprised that their fares aren't cheaper at the moment to be honest.

    • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 11:18
      -3

      Why? That seems a strange thing to say when a quick search demonstrates that MAS are the cheapest full-service airline (and even cheaper than some of the low-cost airlines) on those routes right now. What's different about Malaysian Airlines that suggests they should somehow be even cheaper?

      • jv on 06/08/2014 - 11:21
        +35

        What's different about Malaysian Airlines that suggests they should somehow be even cheaper?

        You must have been hiding under a stone the last few months…

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 11:29
          +7

          I've followed MAS' recent history very closely, and I'm keenly aware of what's going on there. Right now, they'd be my airline of choice for travel to SE Asia. There's been no evidence to demonstrate that some inherent issue with MAS led to either of the recent hull losses. Those things could easily have happened to any operator. The idea that MAS should be discounting at a time when they're in deeper financial trouble than they've ever been is, frankly, ludicrous.

        • jv on 06/08/2014 - 11:53
          +8

          @douglasb:

          The idea that MAS should be discounting at a time when they're in deeper financial trouble than they've ever been is, frankly, ludicrous.

          Market forces will prove you wrong…

        • chonghe on 06/08/2014 - 11:53
          +5

          @douglasb:
          I am glad to read this comment.
          MAS has been a good airline in my view.
          Had it not because of the incidents, it's reputation will not be affected to such extent.
          I sincerely hope MAS will strive through this difficult time by proving that they are a trustworthy airline.

        • jv on 06/08/2014 - 11:55
          -5

          @chonghe:

          Had it not because of the incidents, it's reputation will not be affected to such extent.

          That is very profound…

        • StewBalls on 06/08/2014 - 11:57
          +8

          @douglasb:

          The idea that MAS should be discounting at a time when they're in deeper financial trouble than they've ever been is, frankly, ludicrous.

          IMHO it's the only way they're gonna survive in the Asian market. They've pretty much alienated the Chinese community with their abominable behaviour over MH370…talk about burning the biggest bridge in the region.

          As Martijn says below, watch this space for a collapse or rebrand…

        • overlook on 06/08/2014 - 12:09
          +7

          @jv:

          Where is your proof about both incidents were avoidable. In case you wonder, SIA( singaporean airline that ONLY one that I will choose over MAS) was just there minutes before MH17 was shot down.

          and for MH370, you know what happened? PLEASE REPORT TO THE OFFICIAL. No one even know what happened to that plane.

          Qantas also flies over war zones, so??

          TAKE A BOAT!

        • overlook on 06/08/2014 - 12:30
          +7

          @jv:

          Like I said, SIA still flew there, same as Dutch and Indian Airline. So it couldve have been SIA/Dutch/Indian Airlines, let alone there were others small airlines were in the same area too.

          What do you know, you ignorant lil creature?

        • eug on 06/08/2014 - 12:31
          +5

          @jv:

          No, but Malaysian airlines should know about where all their planes are at all times. Why don't they know ??? My guess is that the do know what happened…

          Obviously you are unaware that it is normal for airlines to NOT track all their planes 100% of the time.

          Wow jv, your reputation was terrible before, but now it's even worse.

        • stevelo on 06/08/2014 - 12:32
          +1

          @jv:
          They should know the location of their plane, that right. What and who can make the plane disappear from radar? Who has this advance technology? Or it is just gone naturally? Who is on the plane? I guess we will never know.

        • overlook on 06/08/2014 - 12:33
          +3

          @jasecs:

          http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-07-17/13:26/24x/49.3,39.33…

          http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-reroutes-flights-over-…
          Qantas still flies over war airspace for a week…after Emirates diverted

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 12:59
          +3

          @jv:

          Please cite your source for that claim. I'm particularly interested in understanding how you know that the first loss was avoidable.

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:20
          +8

          @chonghe:

          In fairness, they're a good, but not a great, airline.

          MAS takes the Singapore Airlines approach to aircraft maintenance, so older aircraft in particular will be legally maintained, but not well maintained. If you're interested, read up what became known as the "ugly sisters", three Boeing 747-400s that Qantas acquired from MAS. It cost quite a bit of maintenance money to bring them up to Qantas standards.

          MAS did also, some years ago, develop a bit of a reputation for taking a degree of risk with fuel planning for long-range flights. At one point in the late 1990s they had arrived at Heathrow Airport a number of times with minimum fuel and declared fuel emergencies. Not dangerous if everything goes to plan, but something of a risk if they can't get on the ground immediately when they reach their destination. It happened often enough (around 10-12 known incidents) that it seemed to be deliberate, possibly even corporate policy to carry minimum fuel. (It's a known approach to cost saving. When you're flying long distances, you have to load fuel to carry the weight of the aircraft, passengers, freight, etc, and THEN you have to load more fuel to carry the weight of the fuel! It's complex, and expensive).

          With that reputation established, I can't help but wonder whether the decision to straight-line it through the Ukraine was, in part, a company culture and cost influenced decision. It's not the cause of the loss, many other airlines were taking the same route, but it didn't help. (Much as I hate to admit it, @jv is likely a ~bit~ correct in his claim of avoidability!)

          Corporate-culturally, country-culturally, they're a fantastic airline. Brilliant service, and something of an in-house cultural goal to compete with Singapore Airlines means that in front-of-house terms, they're a wonderful airline. I hope that part of their culture will be what keeps them alive.

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:38
          +8

          @jv:

          A cite from a Murdoch newspaper is not evidence.

        • suicine94 on 06/08/2014 - 13:54
          -6

          @jasecs:

          so what? if singapore airlines was there they have better technology then malaysia so their plane would of been off the radar or maybe they can dodge the missile or maybe they have stronger armour on the plane so can take the hit.

          it's not good to assume if a singapore plane was 3 mins later the same result would of happened.

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:55
          +4

          @eug:

          It's quite normal, expected even, for operators and even the general public to track aircraft throughout their flights. Operators are in constant contact with the aircraft throught each and every flight. Even the engines on modern commercial aircraft are constantly communicating data to the ground.

          You might find WebTrak, FlightRadar24 and FlightAware interesting.

          You may also be intrigued to learn that the 'usb stick' DVB-T receiver you probably use to watch television on your computer can be repurposed to receive ADS-B transmissions (location, altitude, identification and much more) from nearby aircraft.

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 14:07
          +5

          @suicine94:

          No, Singapore operate the same equipment, with operators manuals and procedures derived from and compliant with the official Boeing manuals, with pilots trained by methods derived from and compliant with official Boeing procedures. The two companies are very very similar. If anything, the Singaporean pilots have a reputation (within the industry) for arrogance and risk-taking that probably puts them a greater risk than MAS in similar circumstances. SQ don't have any magic bullets or stealth technology. MH was flying too high for the conspiracy theory about visual similarity with the Russian presidential transport to be credible, so the fact that MH was downed rather than SQ was simply a tragedy of terribly bad luck.

        • Pretzel_Ninja on 06/08/2014 - 15:11
          +2

          @douglasb: While jv is a troll, it doesn't mean he is incorrect about it being avoidable.

          The pilot switched off the tracking, which from what I've read countless times is completely unusual and against regulations. This would mean it was pilot error, therefore it could have been avoided (not an accident).

          Second flight, while less avoidable, there were numerous airlines already avoiding the conflict zone, therefore also could have been avoidable. Diverting a flight around adds increased costs (fuel for one thing) - unfortunately MAS made the decision to maintain lower expense over safety.

        • chamzoo on 06/08/2014 - 15:31
          +6

          @jv: In hindsight, almost anything can be prevented…

        • eug on 06/08/2014 - 15:44

          @douglasb:

          Operators are in constant contact with the aircraft throught each and every flight.

          The bit where I said "100% of the time" is the key. Over the ocean, out of the range of radar and ground stations, aircraft location is only updated periodically via satellite. That is not 100% of the time. Note that the quote I was replying to specifically says "at all times".

          You might find WebTrak, FlightRadar24 and FlightAware interesting

          I think the whole world knows about FlightRadar24 now, thanks to MH370!

        • Maxxjet on 06/08/2014 - 16:11
          -6

          you simply contradicted yourself when it comes to its corporate culture..yes, there are other airlines fly over Ukraine, but that is not a justification, like you cannot say as other drivers speeding , you can too and it is fine..no it is not, at least not a justification to say it is a reputable, culturally-sound corporate, when it places profitability over safety ( as in the long term, your profitability will suffer , as it does now)—

          There are many other airlines suffered accidents, tragic ones, like Air France or Japanese Airlines, do you wonder why there wasn’t much sentiment around them? Cuz precisely, they are culturally sound corporate, with righteous corporate policies, visions and practices, like Qantas.

          Flying is safe means of transportation doesn’t mean passengers don’t need to worry about who is the carrier, otherwise there is no need for tight & rigid aviation polices in place..

        • stevelo on 06/08/2014 - 16:22

          @Pretzel_Ninja:
          I don't know if MH370's accident is avoidable, actually no one know. Did the pilot cut off the line or the line is being cut. No one actually know, everything is guessed or best estimated. If you really know, please provide the information to associate organisation.

        • argamond on 06/08/2014 - 16:47
          +3

          @jasecs:
          With all due respect, in regards to MH17:

          A Sukhoi Su-25 jet was shot down the day before, 30km from where MH17 was hit. The jet was travelling at 21,000 feet (way above the range of a manpad).

          So unless your impression that 21,000 feet is dangerous, but 33,000 feet is safe, MAS and a bunch of other airlines were playing Russian Roulette and lining up in a line to see which aircraft would be hit.

          The fact that Air France, Korean Air and British Airways (except flights to Kiev) changed their flight paths earlier and did no longer fly in the area means that MAS did not take every precaution in terms of safety. And pointing the finger at SIA and saying that they did it too does not really absolve them of responsibility.

          It is not so much that MAS was unlucky - but that SIA was lucky. A bunch of airlines were flying in a area where planes and helicopters were regularly being shot down, especially one just the day before at a relatively high altitude. A bunch of ducks in a row - but ducks all the same.

        • SydStrand on 06/08/2014 - 16:50
          +2

          @AllWins:

          Other airlines have flown over Ukraine all through this conflict. They've even flown over Iraq and Afghanistan at the height of those wars because it's impossible to shoot down a plane that high by anything but an advanced SAM or enemy aircraft. You simply can't account for random acts of barbarism. Shit happens and Malaysian Airlines had the misfortune of having this come right on the heels of that other tragedy.

        • surm on 06/08/2014 - 16:57
          +1

          @argamond:

          MH17 not unique; commercial aircraft often fly over conflict zones

          Europe's international aviation organization Eurocontrol had deemed MH17's flight path safe, as Aviation Week reports. Though it is true that the pilot's flight path had been cleared for 35,000 feet and the plane had traveled at 33,000, it was still in what was considered a safe range, according to a NOTAM, short for "notice to airmen," sent before the plane went down.

          http://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5915389/malaysian-airlines-cras…

          Even more worrying is the fact the planned path that brought MH17 near the disputed region, which is known as airway L980, is one of the most popular and most congested air routes in the world. L980 is a key link between major international hubs in Europe like London Heathrow, Amsterdam Schipol, and Frankfurt and Asian megacities like Singapore, Mumbai, and Hong Kong. In fact,the airspace over Ukraine is traveled by virtually every commercial flight from Western Europe to south Asia

          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/crucial-air-route-goes-thr…

          The battle on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq may have raged fiercely but in the skies above it was business as usual for the world’s airlines

          http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/07/flight-mh17

          Before Thursday’s crash, about 300 commercial flights a day flew at cruising altitude above eastern Ukraine headed between Europe and Asia. Most of them fly over another conflicted nation — Afghanistan — as well. For example, other Malaysia Airlines flights passed over Ukraine on Thursday, as did aircraft flown by Singapore Airlines and Air France. British Airways routes some of its Asia-bound flights to the north of Ukraine and some to the south.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/air-route-above-eastern-…

        • SydStrand on 06/08/2014 - 17:06
          +2

          @argamond:

          So unless your impression that 21,000 feet is dangerous, but 33,000 feet is safe

          There was an op-ed in the NYT from James Fallows you should read.

          Airlines rely on regulators and national and international bodies to tell them about airspace they should avoid. Absent such warnings, airspace is presumptively legal and safe for transit. MH17 was following the rules by staying out of no-fly and warning zones […] Lufthansa had taken the route more often than did Malaysia Air. So too (according to Spiegel, with data from FlightRadar.com) with Singapore Airlines, famously high-end and responsible airline. Any of them could have met the fate that tragically befell the 298 people on MH17. Indeed, also according to Spiegel, some other first-world airliners were not far from MH17 when it was shot down.

          Before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 took off on Thursday, its crew and dispatchers would have known that a few hours earlier Ukrainian authorities had prohibited flights at 32,000 feet and below across eastern parts of their country, “due to combat actions … near the state border” with Russia, as the official notice put it, including the downing of a Ukrainian military transport plane earlier in the week.

          Therefore when they crossed this zone at 33,000 feet, they were neither cutting it razor-close nor bending the rules, but doing what many other airlines had done, in a way they assumed was both legal and safe. Legal in much the way that driving 63 in a 65-mile-per-hour zone would be.

        • lousy on 06/08/2014 - 17:30
          +3

          @suicine94:

          um "dodge the missile", "stronger armour"? these are civilian airplanes, not sure what type of planes you are referring to? or was this a joke?

        • lousy on 06/08/2014 - 17:36

          @Pretzel_Ninja:

          SOMEONE switched off the tracking. We don't know what the circumstances were. Perhaps the plane was hijacked, perhaps the pilot was under duress.. again until proven, this could have happened on any airline…

          Second flight was unfortunately avoidable, but facts are that most other airlines were also flying the same route. A no-fly should have been issued over the whole airspace instead of just up to 30,000 feet.

        • argamond on 06/08/2014 - 19:01

          @Strand0410:

          Hi

          There is a difference between legal and safe. Legal is a binary term - and yes, what MH17 did was legal. However, the rules and regulations are MINIMUM standards that all airlines must comply with. And indeed, many airlines do exceed the standard (of their own volition)

          Safe, however, is not a binary (black/white) term, and depends on what you are comparing it against. Yes, there were probably hundreds of other flights crossing over eastern Ukraine that day. And yes, any one of those others could have been shot down. But there were certain airlines that deliberately avoided that space. So in comparison to them, MAS was not "safe". Simply put, they took a risk, and whilst it was ok for a couple of months, it is probably their undoing.

          This is not about bending the rules, or breaking them. What MAS did was not illegal. But this incident was reasonably forseeable (albiet with a small likelihood), and there were SOME airlines that would have never been shot

        • neonlight on 06/08/2014 - 20:04
          -1

          @douglasb:

          Lol someone said the same thing when last MAS deal saying they are safest since MH370, look what happen with MH17

        • NoApostrophePlurals on 06/08/2014 - 20:12
          +1

          @jv:
          Came here hoping to read douchey comments from jv. And yep. He's on fire in this thread.

        • brendanl on 06/08/2014 - 20:29
          +2

          @suicine94:

          This has to be the dumbest thing I've read all day.

        • Maxxjet on 06/08/2014 - 21:05

          @Strand0410: as far as I know, Qantas didn't, sure, it is OK to do so, but that doesn't make it an reputable airline as the reason for that is to cut costs. They are taking chance. This is like not everyone taking night ride in the New York subway will get robbed, but if you are street smart, you should take a taxi home,

        • muncan on 06/08/2014 - 21:32

          @AllWins: NYC subway has been safe since the late 90s, but I digress.
          Wait - we're all digressing. What was the deal again?

        • SteveOh on 06/08/2014 - 21:39
          -3

          @douglasb:

          I remember that! I was living in the UK at the time and there was a story in the newspaper about how a Malaysian airliner landed, was told to wait a few minutes before pulling upto the gate and… when they were told ok pull forward to the gate they couldn't because they were out of fuel!!!

          That put me off them forever. I mean a change in weather or having to make a second pass, abort a landing and they would have crashed.

          It's simple, don't fly third world airlines. Besides, who want to support a country where being gay or chewing buble gum can get you flogged with a bamboo cane! LOL!

        • Tech5 on 07/08/2014 - 01:54

          @jv:

          2004 Asian tsunami did not hit other countries (tibet for example), thus the tsunami was avoidable.

          Strong logic/10

        • HN Professional on 07/08/2014 - 03:12

          @Crowdedthehouse:
          Not surprised jv is firing on all cylinders. Am surprised that other troll, Davo93, hasn't joined in.

        • mikaelkn on 07/08/2014 - 13:09
          -1

          @stevelo:

          Wow! People are still buying into the "We dunno wut happened to the airline jet". 10 years ago this would have been plausible. But we're in the day and age where we can remotely fly a warplane half the world away and STILL able to gatecrash a wedding.

          But then again people are still willing to fly with them pre MH17 incident…

        • gimli on 08/08/2014 - 21:47
          +2

          @jv:
          Man it's not fair. Negs used on jv should not count towards your daily quota

        • kiamsup on 19/08/2014 - 11:13

          @jv:
          Avoidable? How?

        • eug on 19/08/2014 - 11:30

          @kiamsup: With hindsight, of course. ;)

          This thread has quietly died down. I think it's better if we left it like that!

      • Wraith on 06/08/2014 - 12:12
        +5

        Well, a significant proportion of their passenger base are Chinese, who are culturally very superstitious. If there hasn't been a significant decrease in demand from this element of their customers, I'll be stunned.

        Drops in demand usually lead to an increase in supply - which in turn often translates to price reductions.

        • jv on 06/08/2014 - 12:27
          -8

          If there hasn't been a significant decrease in demand from this element of their customers, I'll be stunned.

          You should also factor in though that seat cleaning costs will now be considerably less for Malaysian Airlines….

    • f38r1 on 06/08/2014 - 17:08
      -1

      Agree. Should be cheaper by now. Besides, the cost of one commercial flight is around $9 USD per trip. Here

    • Timocracy on 06/08/2014 - 22:55

      double post

    • Timocracy on 06/08/2014 - 22:56

      Biggest risk with this fares is that the Airline will go under after you've paid for the tickets. There's quite a bit of debate in the aviation community as to weather MAS will go under and respawn under a different name or try to trade there way through it(with government backing)

    • vegimate on 14/08/2014 - 14:17
      -2

      another reason not to fly this airline!

      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article41756…

    • cornholyio on 19/08/2014 - 10:43

      I like their food and booze, movie and shows selections and tight skirts, :-D and yes the cheap fares of course!

  • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 11:15
    +1

    Sweet deal! Sydney to Singapore (which is where I actually want to go) via Kuala Lumpur is just $690 return.

    • madrooster on 06/08/2014 - 21:25

      You're better off waiting for a QF or BA sale and fly direct. Both are often in the $650-700 range.

  • Lord Fart Bucket on 06/08/2014 - 11:16
    +20

    The only reason i would not buy tickets too far in the future is that i am not confident that the airline will exist for too much longer. There are already plans to rebrand the airline.

    Only tip i can give with this is to get a damn good travel insurance that would cover insolvency of the airline. Might just be my negative view…

    • muncan on 06/08/2014 - 11:19
      +6

      If they did rebrand, surely their number one priority in reestablishing themselves as a trustworthy airline would be to honour existing flights?
      Let's ask the Gruen team…What Would Putin Do?

      • sonicentropy on 06/08/2014 - 11:56
        -1

        I heard a rumour they were rebranding to "May Land Airlines"

    • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 11:25
      +3

      I think Malaysian Airlines (MAS) will survive. Its character will change significantly, but the cultural significance of any national airline is so important that governments will always seriously consider supporting an ailing national airline. MAS now faces inevitably financially difficult times. Whilst lesser issues than those facing MAS have led to the insolvency, and collapse, of an airline before today (think SwissAir 111), MAS plays such a significant role in the Malaysian cultural identity, particularly with regard to its relationships and history with nearby geographic neighbours, that a government bailout of some sort is quite likely. I'll fly with MAS next time I go to Asia because I think they deserve the support.

      • EarlyBird on 06/08/2014 - 11:47
        +4

        I think Malaysian Airlines (MAS) will survive.

        Although the last incident wasn't their fault the brand is so tarnished by the two disasters that they will need rebranding to survive.

        Any suggestions for a new name?

        They could emulate the success of their neighbour Singapore Airlines (SIA) and rename theirs to Malaysia International Airlines or MIA .

        • Alphaduck99 on 06/08/2014 - 12:24

          I think there is a possibility that the Air Asia / MAS merger is being discussed again at the moment. That could lead to "Air Malaysia
          for long haul out of KUL and Air Asia everywhere else. (Similar to the Qantas / Jetstar structure)

        • Ultraman on 06/08/2014 - 14:01
          +2

          LOL @ the acronym M.I.A.

          You do realise what that could stand for right? =)

        • muncan on 06/08/2014 - 14:49

          Miami International Airport?

        • ddxsamx on 06/08/2014 - 16:11
          +6

          @Ultraman: lol pretty sure that's the reason why he mentioned it..

        • Maxxjet on 06/08/2014 - 16:14
          -3

          MIT will be more easy to market ….

        • f38r1 on 06/08/2014 - 16:52
          +1

          Missing In Action

      • jv on 06/08/2014 - 13:32

        but the cultural significance of any national airline is so important that governments will always seriously consider supporting an ailing national airline.

        Are you sure about that ?

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:42
          +2

          Yes, I am. Qantas wasn't in genuine danger. Hockey was blustering. The press dutifully appealled to the general public's sense of apparent patriotism. Theatrics.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 11:27
      +1

      Its under the OneWorld banner so you would hope they would survive. I feel sorry for them to be honest.

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 06/08/2014 - 11:40
        +8

        Ansett was under the star alliance. Damn lot of good it did them.

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:02
          +2

          Ansett's undoing was the decision to let Air New Zealand (ANZ) become involved. ANZ set out deliberately and with malice to gut Ansett of it's assetts and then walked away and let it die. There were stories of ANZ aircraft shipping loads of Ansett spare parts, even spare engines, back to New Zealand. ANZ was ruthless with it's destruction of Ansett.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 13:16

          'Hope' being the chosen word here.

    • geek001 on 06/08/2014 - 11:27
      +3

      I share the same concern, while I do not think that Malaysia will be without a national carrier, I still wonder if the airline will still fold and gets rebranded into something else. I have been told the reason MH is not making any money at the moment is because of its costly contracts that lasts 20 to 30 years, so to get out of this and start being profitable, MH will need to get out of these contracts somehow.

      So, what does this mean for consumers who has tickets when they get rebranded/restructured? Who knows.

      • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 11:32
        +2

        Even if the airline is 'technically' disbanded, sold, & relaunched as a new company, the new owners would be entirely within their rights to honour arrangements (ie: bookings) with the existing company even if the two entities are entirely unrelated in any legal sense. As @muncan suggests, it'd be a great way to build good will.

        • Lord Fart Bucket on 06/08/2014 - 11:45

          the new owners would be entirely within their rights to honour arrangements (ie: bookings)

          Would it be their obligation though?

        • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:05
          +1

          @Martijn:

          I would think not, unless honouring existing bookings was some sort of condition of sale.

          Think of the old computer shop game: offer a bajillion year warranty on all computers and equipment knowing that long warranties encourage sales, disband the business every couple of years, reply "sorry mate, that was a different company" to all warranty claims. ???. Profit!!!

          The new airline /could/ choose to take that approach with customers of the existing airline, but it probably wouldn't help with reputation and good will!

        • Lord Fart Bucket on 06/08/2014 - 14:04
          +2

          @douglasb:

          I would think not

          Exactly. Which brings me back to the reason i probably won't be booking with them.
          I'd rather spend a little more to avoid any uncertainty. I know, some may believe this goes against the OzB spirit, but i think at the moment, it's too close to gambling.

    • mathew42 on 06/08/2014 - 12:38

      Alternatively pay with a credit card and if the airline folds then dispute the transaction for non delivery.

      Planning to take the family to LegoLand next year, so I'm hoping the cheap fares last that long.

      • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 13:06
        +3

        Take a close look at the costs associated with going to LegoLand (particularly park entry fees) before you leave home. I've heard that its insanely expensive.

  • glengyron on 06/08/2014 - 11:19
    +4

    These are great deals. Almost cheaper than Air Asia X and you get food and luggage.

    • Frozensage on 06/08/2014 - 11:45
      +4

      and perhaps abit more…

  • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 11:26
    +4

    Comes with free panic attack tablets.. I guess I'd be worried is all.

  • BuyNow Think Later on 06/08/2014 - 11:27
    +6

    $97 cheaper for KUL to SYD return vs SYD to KUL return. This is the Sydney tax!

  • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 11:29

    $20 cheaper on travel.com.au

    $535 return in Feb (most likely all dates) from mel-kul

    Thanks!

    EDIT: $533 on bestjet.com I'm not too familiar with bestjet and their contact centre is in the US so if something needs to be changed you'll be dealing with someone over there. Will most likely be best dealing with MH direct or saving $20 and going with travel.com.au

    Also Expedia.com.au will pricebeat travel.com.au by $1 and give you a $50 coupon.

    • douglasb on 06/08/2014 - 11:34
      +1

      Nice find, but my own direct experience with travel.com.au is that they cannot be 100% relied upon to honour the bookings they take on line. I'd pay the extra $20 rather than risk travel.com.au again.

      • highdealer on 06/08/2014 - 11:55

        I just book using travel.com.au . Not are sure what you mean they cannot 100% relied upon to honour the booking they take.

        I had already receive my e-ticket with my confirmation itinerary. Does that mean that i am safe?

        • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 12:05
          +2

          Just another unjustified comment from possibly one isolated incident which was most likely a price error.I've never had any issues with them. Care to elaborate?

          $20 is $20 and $20 x 2 = $40 if travelling with a partner.

          As long as you receive your confirmation this will have a malaysian airlines confirmation code in which you can manage your booking direct with MH.

          The only real thing that is different is if you want to change/cnacel your ticket at anytime. 3rd party travelsites are known to add their own fee for changing/cancelling in addition to what the airline charges. However with these tickets they are non refundable/non changable so this doesn't matter anyways.

          Highdealer enjoy your trip!

  • ronnknee on 06/08/2014 - 11:34
    +3

    SYD-KUL on AirAsia can be as low as $436 until late November. If you do not need the full service like me, then it's around $134 cheaper with AirAsia.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/08/2014 - 12:07
      +2

      Not paying for baggage? Meals? Drinks?

      Very happy to pay $67 more each way for.

      More legroom/baggage/meals/unlimited beverages/entertainment, also things as small as a blanket & pillow will be provided FOC.

      Hopefully will have less loads on the plane too due to what has happened recently. Nothing better than getting on a plane and having 3 seats between 2.

      • youface on 07/08/2014 - 12:33

        |blanket & pillow will be provided FOC.

        is it okay to take those with us when we leave the plane? or one of those things thats frowned upon but they don't mind? An Ozbargainer will try and take what they can that's free

  • bluedufflecoat on 06/08/2014 - 11:49

    Any idea how long these fares are valid for?

    • shadowarrior on 06/08/2014 - 12:00
      +9

      As long as they have their planes on the radar.

      I'll see myself out. :|

  • ctrlaltdel on 06/08/2014 - 11:54

    can't find any of those prices during school holidays :(

    • tsunamisurfer on 06/08/2014 - 12:44
      +3

      Please think of the Children.

      • ctrlaltdel on 06/08/2014 - 13:19
        +3

        precisely, i have kids, hence i can only travel during school holidays.

  • PlasmaCatcher on 06/08/2014 - 11:58

    Free travel insurance?

  • bohn on 06/08/2014 - 11:59

    Wonder if they do a good deal on Business class also :>

  • win.robin on 06/08/2014 - 12:11
    -1

    Thanks though, but I don't want be worth only 555 rtn
    and I have a family.

  • montorola on 06/08/2014 - 12:15
    -1

    Guys, I think we should cut the insensitive jokes, it's really unnecessary and immature.

    I kinda feel sorry for these guys, everything that has happened was out of their control, it's not like they deliberately planned those events. If anything, I'm sure now they will be following every rule in the book to make sure something doesn't happen to their airline a 3rd time.

    However, purely out of tight reasons, I'll still be flying with Scoot since they're cheaper still

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join