Return Flights to Paris with Malaysia Airlines: PER fr $1224, ADL fr $1270, SYD fr $1334, MEL fr $1334 @ flightfinderau

Related Stores

flightfinderau

Third-Party

Malaysia Airlines

• 

  BargainTheWorld on 09/02/2025 - 10:25

  -1

  Just asking, are these prices matches or near to pre-Covid?

  • 

    bruschetta on 09/02/2025 - 22:52

    About that

• 

  Time has come on 09/02/2025 - 12:07

  +17

  A reminder about some Malaysian Airlines travel news and hacks.

  They have put their brand new A330neo on MH148 for MEL to KL and MH149 from KL to MEL. Win! The neo keeps their 2-4-2 layout, popular with couples. (And nice 7yo A350s fly the KUL to Paris segments.)

  Book direct for free bonus side trip (+taxes) in peninsular Malaysia to beach places like Penang, Langkawi, Kuala Terengganu, or Kuantan etc.

  MH also has a secret Premium Economy class that is sold as Economy. To book it, you first select the Flex bundle so you get Priority boarding etc and then choose the Premium Bundle as an add on services so you get extra leg room and lounge access on segments from KL. Then add Extra legroom for the other MEL-KUL and CDG-KUL segments. There you have a PE fare to Europe for under $2,400 - around half the price of PE on other airlines. Again, you can't organise this yourself unless you BOOK DIRECT.

  From what I've seen, economy check in for MH is very slow so I would consider the money spent to access priority check in lanes worthwhile.

  • 

    immrnonamehello on 09/02/2025 - 12:26

    I think they have grounded the A330neos due to some operational issues. Not sure if that's been resolved yet.

    Still waiting for them to upgrade from the old A330 between SYD-KUL…

    • 

      Time has come on 09/02/2025 - 12:34

      Looks like they are back in service: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9m-mng

    • 

      penguinswillrise on 09/02/2025 - 21:01

      rip A380 era

  • 

    pennypinching on 09/02/2025 - 15:04

    +3

    This guy Malaysia airlines

  • 

    MILKAPIG on 09/02/2025 - 16:08

    +1

    Nice hack thanks for sharing

    Any tips for other airlines?

    • 

      Time has come on 09/02/2025 - 17:42

      +5

      All I can think of at the moment:

      • For SYD and PER flyers, ANA have 34" legroom as standard in Economy and extra legroom seats are only $50 per long haul segment - unheard of value.

      • Etihad has quite a few rows of Economy Space seating that are all 35" and the cost is usually $450 extra on a Europe return, well worth it for a PE-like product.

      • JAL standard economy seats are basically all PE-like at 34" pitch and the widest economy seats that I know of. Extra legroom seats are US$100 per long haul segment, but not really needed unless on an overnight flight.

      • Jetstar's extra legroom charge on flights to Asia is I think only $55, a very good value upgrade if you have a low base fare and don't have checked in bags, which tend to be where the costs are.

      • China Airlines (premium Taiwanese carrier) has some sub $1,400 flights to Europe (Vienna, I think) only visible on their website. But extra legroom seat charges are extortionate, luckily their standard economy seats are pretty good as they are.

      • In general, pay attention to aircraft models:
        A350s, A380s, and most B787s have a quieter and more comfortable atmosphere.
        Most A330s and B777s are getting old, still safe but not as comfortable. Singapore, Emirates, Cathay, Qatar and Qantas have a lot of these less desirable planes alongside the newer ones - check this detail before booking.

      • 

        kiitos on 10/02/2025 - 13:53

        Thank you, very informative

• 

  igoforthebest on 09/02/2025 - 13:04

  Does Malaysia airlines allow to carry a laptop backpack in addition to the carry on luggage? In economy class

  • 

    Its4me on 10/02/2025 - 01:56

    +1

    Last year was 2 pieces hand luggage, combined mass not exceeding 7kg. One must fit under seat.

• 

  Traya1 on 09/02/2025 - 13:22

  +3

  Only problem is the arrival in Paris, such a shame

  How quickly can you get onto another plane and GTFO?

  • 

    MiKaDo on 09/02/2025 - 14:15

    +1

    What don't you like about Paris?

    • 

      Tacooo on 09/02/2025 - 15:04

      +1

      No Bintang shirts or XXXX on tap.

    • 

      Traya1 on 09/02/2025 - 17:56

      +4

      Just quite unsafe, lot of petty crime and harassment particularly for women.

      Its just such a dirty and filthy city, reminded me a lot of the old industrial cities and towns in the UK - just so obviously in decline and not what they were made decades ago. I was just so blown away how different Paris is from the rest of France and I'm not just referring to the whole migrant situation.

      • 

        Sydney2K on 09/02/2025 - 19:27

        +5

        I know what you mean- I got robbed within an hour after leaving the airport.

      • 

        MrFrugalSpend on 09/02/2025 - 21:17

        +4

        yes some aspects of it aren't great. Other places are bad too like parts of Rome.

        I got fleeced of 50 Euro in a 'kind of' robbery in Paris - my partner and I were accosted by a few large men, I'm guessing Algerian or something like that, each grabbed by the arm, and forced to buy some junk worth nothing for an exorbitant amount that they nominated - I tried to pull away and say no, then it became more clear it was basically robbery as he called more people to surround us and said we had to buy it. Fortunately I had separated my cash so it looked like that's all I had. That was the worst example but there were so many really forceful beggars getting in your face and pushy often dodgy sellers of various things. In another example, my father got into a physical shoving match with one aggressive vendor who was harassing an old lady and followed her onto their private tour bus, boarding it and standing inside the door of the bus insisting they buy something, my dad tried to usher him off which resulted in a shoving match - this guy got very aggressive trying to fight him even though he had got in a private vehicle that was trying to leave. Fortunately my father is quite a large man that frequents the gym regularly, or who knows what would have happened.

        In another situation, we found someone who said they spoke a little English to buy train tickets from at a ticket sales office at a train station, told him what we needed it for, however they must have sold me the wrong type of ticket and I couldn't read the ticket detail, which we only found out when we got accosted by an official who checked the ticket then called the police on us when we were getting off the train - we were fined, even though I had bought a ticket - my wife understood enough French to know they were saying stuff about us and they thought we were American before deciding to press the issue, and they wouldn't listen to my explanation that I had bought a ticket that ticket had let us through the auto gates (which it shouldn't have done if it wasn't valid) - Yet despite this we saw countless locals jumping the gates with no ticket who got away with it!

        There are nice parts, the obligatory tourist sites, etc… but outside of that, I agree it has a lot of bad elements too.

      • 

        WindowsXP on 09/02/2025 - 21:24

        +1

        Never had an issue in Paris. It was also quite clean. The only time it felt sketchy was way outside of the central parts. Been approached by scammers, just told them to (profanity) off and they went on their merry way.

      • 

        Jenbrook on 10/02/2025 - 21:23

        +1

        You been to Melbourne CBD lately?

        • 

          MrFrugalSpend on 12/02/2025 - 07:15

          @Jenbrook: True that, won't go into details, but yeah felt quite unsafe out on foot after midnight in the CBD recently

• 

  thom on 09/02/2025 - 14:34

  -2

  It's disappointing to see people consider discounted Malaysian Airlines flights a deal.. clearly some people have a different value on their safety.

  • 

    TheBardsTale on 09/02/2025 - 14:56

    -2

    😂 😂 😂 Malaysian Airlines is safe.

    • 

      Corgsta on 09/02/2025 - 15:04

      Yeah, that’s going back a long time now hey. Btw, love you username - my fav game as a kid on my C64!

    • 

      thom on 09/02/2025 - 15:31

      That's what Malaysian Airlines said to the families of MH370 & MH17..
      10 years seems to be about their average time between incidents.
      It doesn't look like they are any closer to finding MH370.. even after 10 years.

      • 

        pointnlarf on 09/02/2025 - 15:55

        hasn't every major airline crashed bar Qantas? fly with them if you like….

        • 

          GregRust on 09/02/2025 - 18:12

          @pointnlarf: Qantas has crashed, they just haven’t had a hull loss since the start of the “jet era”.

          • 

            OnlyHans on 09/02/2025 - 18:50

            +1

            @GregRust: QF1 apparently being a non-economical repair in order to preserve this reputation of no jet losses.

            • 

              GregRust on 10/02/2025 - 09:02

              @OnlyHans: Exactly.

      • 

        OnlyHans on 09/02/2025 - 18:56

        10 years seems to be about their average time between incidents.

        Please list the incidents you are basing this claim on.

        • 

          thom on 09/02/2025 - 21:14

          -1

          @OnlyHans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines

          • 

            OnlyHans on 10/02/2025 - 00:26

            @thom: Surprisingly few incidents. In fact this is less bad than what I would have presumed.

            Regardless, with the rarity of accidents in aviation it is inherently illogical to try to form patterns or make inferences about causally unrelated incidents.

            Qantas had five unrelated accidents between 1989 and 2010, of which three of the five were on Boeing 747s and three of the five were concentrated between 2008-2010. Making inferences about that might be tempting for some, but would nonetheless be mistaken.

            • 

              thom on 10/02/2025 - 07:47

              -1

              @OnlyHans: Approximately a major incident every 10 years, with 2014 being a disaster.

              Even if you don't care for your own safety, care for your family & friends who will be left seeking answers.

              • 

                OnlyHans on 11/02/2025 - 21:54

                @thom: Thanks for the lol :)

                It's as simple as understanding the context, not extrapolating from causally unrelated rare events, avoiding emotion (and appeals to emotion), and challenging bias.

                Granted these things aren't necessarily easy when it comes to human nature, but they are all nonetheless simple.

                • 

                  thom on 12/02/2025 - 00:35

                  @OnlyHans: What's funny about 2 major incidents (MH370 & MH17) occurring in the same year?

                  Both occurred from the same airline during the same time period.

                  Both could have been prevented had the airline taken safety seriously.

                  If you want to analyse something, try putting yourself in the shoes of the families left seeking answers when these disasters occurred. Would you really want to be relying on Malaysian Airlines to provide closure? Is the risk really worth the reward?

                  • 

                    OnlyHans on 12/02/2025 - 01:27

                    @thom: Nothing is funny about the two incidents. What made me laugh out loud was your overwrought appeal to emotion.

                    If you want to analyse something

                    I have done plenty of analysis and applied objective principles - understanding the context, not extrapolating from causally unrelated rare events, avoiding emotion (and appeals to emotion), and challenging bias.

                    try putting yourself in the shoes of the families left seeking answers when these disasters occurred

                    Another appeal to emotion that is completely irrelevant to a discussion of likelihood of incidents occurring and causal factors (or lack thereof).

                    It may be a pertinent consideration if you wish to criticise the airline's response (and there could be many valid criticisms), but is of no concern to a logical analysis.

                    Would you really want to be relying on Malaysian Airlines to provide closure? Is the risk really worth the reward?

                    If you are wanting to criticise the airline's historical responses and ability to provide closure, by all means feel free to do so. You are entitled to feel however you do about it, for any combination of reasons, and that is none of my concern.

                    My interest remains understanding the context, not extrapolating from causally unrelated rare events, avoiding emotion (and appeals to emotion), and challenging bias.

                    • 

                      thom on 13/02/2025 - 05:42

                      -1

                      @OnlyHans: You continue to ignore the obvious question.

                      1) Did Malaysian Airlines prioritise their own profits over the safety of their passengers?

                      Prior to the MH370 incident the airline ought to have been aware of the pilot's mental health. The decision not to ground the pilot placed the passengers of MH370 at an increased risk (of what we know as the disappearance today).

                      Prior to the MH17 incident the airline ought to have been aware of the increased risk to continue flying over eastern Ukraine. The decision not to alter the flight path, flying only ~300m from restricted airspace, placed the passengers of MH17 at an increased risk of the incident that occurred due to their proximity to the restricted airspace.

                      You're clearly biased in your analysis. Perhaps you're a patriotic Malaysian national or someone associated with the airline.

                      Either way you're ignorant to the fact that Malaysian Airlines placed their passengers at an increased risk in order to increase their profits.

      • 

        MrFrugalSpend on 09/02/2025 - 21:35

        actually they are apparently closer to finding it, conducting a new search with new information this year - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewxnwe5d11o

      • 

        Jenbrook on 10/02/2025 - 21:26

        You can’t say being shot down by RuZZia a Malaysian airlines issue, that was a act of terrorism.

        • 

          thom on 10/02/2025 - 22:12

          @Jenbrook: Flying over Ukraine was dangerous and other airlines avoided it due to safety concerns. Malaysian Airlines put their passengers at risk, even after MH370.

          Russia should definitely take responsibility for shooting down MH17.. there's no doubt that it was their missile.

          & Malaysia should take responsibility for the suicidal pilot who took down MH370! Hopefully they will continue searching for the plane so that families can finally have some closure.

          • 

            jackspratt on 11/02/2025 - 00:53

            @thom: What rational reason can there be to conflate the circumstances around MH17 with those around MH370?

            • 

              thom on 11/02/2025 - 09:38

              -2

              @jackspratt: Both could have been prevented if the airline prioritised passenger safety.

          • 

            LeBargainer on 11/02/2025 - 11:48

            @thom: Putting the blame on the pilot doesn't unfortunately answer so many questions about MH370!

            • 

              thom on 12/02/2025 - 00:41

              @LeBargainer: I don't blame the pilot - I blame Malaysian Airlines for not grounding the pilot. An airline that prioritises safety would monitor the health of their staff and take action to prevent passengers safety being compromised.

          • 

            OnlyHans on 12/02/2025 - 02:28

            @thom:

            Flying over Ukraine was dangerous

            Flying over Ukraine was a risk that varied depending on the area. Airspace over southern Ukraine was subject to the most severe EASA/Eurocontrol/ICAO and US FAA notices/prohibitions, recommending or requiring that airspace to be avoided.

            Restrictions applied to MH17's flight path over eastern Ukraine but the airspace was not closed. MH17 was operating in accordance with Eurocontrol requirements, such as flying above 32,000 feet. That eastern Ukraine airspace was used by numerous airlines and flights in the days and weeks leading up to MH17.

            and other airlines avoided it due to safety concerns

            The implication that all other airlines avoided the eastern Ukraine airspace is incorrect. Some did, but numerous airlines and flights used that airspace in the days and weeks leading up to MH17, including Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic among others.

            BBC reported The airspace over eastern Ukraine was busy with commercial flights that day - 160 planes flew over the region. The Guardian reported about 100 aircraft a day from more than 60 different airlines were seen in the region over the past week.

            Malaysian Airlines put their passengers at risk

            They did take on a level of risk as did some other airlines. I wouldn't criticise them for flying in accordance with the applicable requirements at the time, but I can understand why others might criticise the decision to use that airspace.

            Having said that, if there is to be criticism then its application should logically be consistent (to some similar extent) against all airlines that did likewise. Wilfully criticising one airline but not others is evidence of bias … and it is the norm when it comes to MH17.

            • 

              thom on 12/02/2025 - 07:30

              -1

              @OnlyHans: You're twisting words trying to suit your narrative. I haven't said ALL airlines avoided that route. I've said that airlines that prioritised safety definitely did.

              *"A spokesman for Qantas said the Australian flag carrier had not used the route for months. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific said it had been taking a detour for "quite some time". British Airways, Korean Air Lines, Air Berlin, Asiana Airlines and Taiwan's China Airlines had also been avoiding the east Ukraine route - which is the most commonly used between Europe and Asia - for months. British Airways declined to comment on its previous flight routes.

              Eurocontrol, which manages the European air transport network, said MH17 was flying at approximately 33,000ft, 1,000ft above closed airspace."*

              Malaysian Airlines flew the shortest distance, barely 300m above restricted airspace, to save money on fuel. As a consequence passenger safety was decreased in priority.

              MH370 is a separate incident and even after 11 years we are yet to learn the truth of what occurred. What is clear from the investigations is that Malaysian Airlines cut a lot of corners in their processes in order to save money. What's worse is that even after the tragedy of losing 1 aircraft the airline didn't change to prioritise safety. A routine assessment of the pilot should have raised alert that he was a risk. Unfortunately these risks were repeatedly ignored.

              It's clear that you have a bias in defending Malaysian Airlines. Perhaps you're a patriotic Malaysian national. Hopefully you can take your own advice and look at the situation without bias, as it's clear that both incidents had increased risk due to decisions made by Malaysian Airlines.

              This post is about deals from Malaysian Airlines. I don't consider these to be worthwhile given the risk to passenger safety or the poor response from the airline in the years following. Others may be willing to prioritise saving a small amount of money over their safety. I wouldn't want my family or friends to suffer the same way families & friends of passengers on MH370 & MH17 have suffered due to cost cutting by Malaysian Airlines.

  • 

    GregRust on 09/02/2025 - 15:25

    Give it a rest.

    • 

      thom on 09/02/2025 - 16:30

      -2

      the Malaysian Government had a similar response to the families of MH370..

• 

  FujinShu on 09/02/2025 - 15:57

  MAL has the best food I’ve eaten on an aircraft so far.
  Not quite as good as that breakfast on the Quanta’s A380 when going from Melbourne to LA in early 2013, but still REALLY good when people hate airline food.

  • 

    belongsinforums on 09/02/2025 - 17:16

    Better than the air asia nasi lemak?

    • 

      FujinShu on 10/02/2025 - 13:32

      Didn’t go on Air Asia, or at least don’t remember if I ever went on Air Asia as a baby or young child.

• 

  BluebirdV on 09/02/2025 - 16:08

  -1

  Are they safe to fly?

  • 

    immrnonamehello on 09/02/2025 - 16:30

    Always safe until not safe. Doesn't matter what airline

  • 

    GregRust on 09/02/2025 - 18:13

    Yes, they would be blacklisted from Australian airspace if they weren’t safe.

    • 

      BluebirdV on 10/02/2025 - 10:49

      -1

      How come Cebu Pacific can fly to Australia but is blacklisted from Europe then?

      • 

        GregRust on 10/02/2025 - 12:08

        It’s not banned from Europe.

        • 

          BluebirdV on 10/02/2025 - 12:09

          @GregRust: Really, I thought they couldn't fly to Europe.

          • 

            GregRust on 10/02/2025 - 12:09

            @BluebirdV: The ban was lifted in 2014 🙂

            • 

              BluebirdV on 10/02/2025 - 12:09

              -1

              @GregRust: So why don't they fly to Europe?

              • 

                GregRust on 10/02/2025 - 12:10

                @BluebirdV: I have no idea, the same reasons that Virgin Australia doesn’t fly to Europe?

                • 

                  BluebirdV on 10/02/2025 - 12:11

                  -1

                  @GregRust: They fly to Dubai. Wouldn't be much further to go to Greece.

                  • 

                    GregRust on 10/02/2025 - 12:12

                    @BluebirdV: True. Maybe ask the airline directly.

                  • 

                    jackspratt on 10/02/2025 - 13:44

                    @BluebirdV: Is that you, jv?

• 

  montorola on 09/02/2025 - 17:37

  Thanks OP, I'll finally be able to make it to the Paris 2024 Olympics

  • 

    Sydney2K on 09/02/2025 - 19:25

    +2

    You obviously are booking on Internet Explorer.

• 

  Sydney2K on 09/02/2025 - 19:26

  Really dumb question- is Paris the only destination for France-bound intercontinental flights? Especially from Asia/Pacific?

  • 

    Time has come on 09/02/2025 - 20:37

    Interesting question!

    A few intercontinental flights head to places in France other than Paris:
    https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-to-france-fr

    Shanghai Airlines is the only Asia Pacific option. It flies to Nice.

    Middle East carriers eg from Dubai and Doha have a few options.

    There are lots of routes from Montreal into France. Makes sense.

    LA has a few options so yeah!

  • 

    pangwen on 10/02/2025 - 07:54

    You could always go to Noumea?

• 

  jingsu6688 on 09/02/2025 - 19:50

  find mh370 first

• 

  hardya on 09/02/2025 - 21:37

  Is this the same carrier as Malaysia/Malaya Air System (M A.S.)?

• 

  willyroo on 10/02/2025 - 09:57

  Some love for BNE soon hopefully…