Why do people still avoid Malaysia Airlines?

[Mattg]

This may be a controversial statement, but I'm bemused by the number of people I still hear saying they will avoid flying Malaysia Airlines at all costs.

I understand why some people feel this way about MH. The two Boeing 777 crashes in 2014 were extremely unfortunate. But I don't think they are at all a reflection of a poor safety culture at Malaysia Airlines today.

MH370 was likely the result of a rogue pilot. This pilot could have been working at any other airline. Indeed, the 2015 Germanwings crash was also caused by pilot suicide.

MH17 was an extremely unfortunate incident that was outside of the airline's control. Sure, you could argue that they shouldn't have been flying over Ukraine. But many other airlines were doing exactly the same thing at the time, including Singapore Airlines. I don't hear of many people avoiding Singapore Airlines over safety concerns. Even so, MH no longer flies over Ukraine so it's not an ongoing safety threat.

Personally, I enjoy flying Malaysia Airlines a lot. I've found the service to be really good and they have a good business class product on the A330s flying to Australia. There's also those delicious satay sticks! Plus, they have some very competitive fares and decent award availability to Australia.

So why do people still avoid Malaysia Airlines?

 

[dajop]

To pre empt some of the debate ... some here would argue that the comments of their commercial director at the time of MH17 suggesting that airlines should not be responsible for determining no fly zones is enough. Interestingly the quoted director is now with Qatar Airlines.

For me I have no more qualms flying MH than SQ, LH, KL or the other carries who all ignored what was happening at the time in Ukraine.

Also some point to the handling of MH 370 and subsequent denial of liability. Which is probably fair, but also reflective of Malaysia as a whole and not just MH.

For me I will fly them if the price is right (I did last week and might even do so this weekend on this basis), but they have screwed Enrich to such an extent that all else being equal I prefer other carriers whose frequent flyer programs are not so stingy.

 

[Mattg]

For me I will fly them if the price is right (I did last week and might even do so this weekend on this basis), but they have screwed Enrich to such an extent that all else being equal I prefer other carriers whose frequent flyer programs are not so stingy.

I do agree about Enrich - it's no longer a good frequent flyer program. But that has nothing to do with my willingness to fly MH.

 

[oz_mark]

Wait until they cancel one of your flights, and you discover the joys of their customer service!

(Having said that, I still fly them....)

 

[GSP]

@Mattg, agree with all of your comments (bar one) and are also unsure of the extent of the public negative reaction.

The point I don't agree with is the Satay sticks. I love Satay sticks and often have them as entree at most Thai nights out, however on MH they are good (actually quite good), but not fantastic. IOW, I think they are overated.

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm one of those avoiding MH (in as much as I never consider them in my trips), but if it was the absolute best choice (schedule, price), I'd probably go with them.

Why? Fear of the known, I guess. I know of the crashes and while recognising that those incidents may have been able to happen with many airlines, to me they did happen with MH and that's two more than nearly any of the rest (at least in the past 10-20 years). I think I've said before on these pages that I don't claim to be rational in all my flying decisions

 

[Moody]

I think I flew MH once many years ago, and at the time thought they were fine and never put much thought into the relative safety records and standards of each carrier group. Decades (and many hundreds of sectors) later I have changed my outlook on life in the air.

So blame it on hysteria or Air Crash Investigation (et al) or AFF itself, but I have a "no-fly" list that starts with AF, MH, GA ......

 

[yohy?!]

Personally I find them cr@p and unworthy of being in oneworld. Not worth the hassle even with the bargain ex-Asia fares when I can sinilar pricing for CX J.

 

[jetpack]

Humans are emotional creatures. A lot of people will throw logic out the window and will always and forever associate MH with crashing. No different I suppose to a lot of people thinking that QF is the safest airline in the world, when it is no safer than many other airlines.

 

[ozjuice]

The way they handled the whole thing and some of the things that came to light put me off them a lot. I'm sure other airlines are as bad but they haven't had that exposure.
Also, they seem to lose luggage a lot and their customer service follow up and assistance seems to be awful. This is from friends experiences.
However, I do have 4 MH flights booked on domestic next year.

 

[mannej]

So blame it on hysteria or Air Crash Investigation (et al) or AFF itself, but I have a "no-fly" list that starts with AF, MH, GA ......

Is SQ on that list by any chance?

 

[AisleSeat]

I can't speak for other classes on MH, but on my one trip with them in Y (four sectors), the pillows on every flight were gross and yellowing. That put me off them.

 

[Moody]

Is SQ on that list by any chance?

I would put them in the "Not Proven" category.

Humans are emotional creatures. A lot of people will throw logic out the window and will always and forever associate MH with crashing. No different I suppose to a lot of people thinking that QF is the safest airline in the world, when it is no safer than many other airlines.

I think that QF30, QF32, QF72, etc. are actually great adverts for the quality of Qantas flight crew. It's not always about the raw stats.

 

[boomy]

For me it’s not about avoiding MH for safety reasons but having better options flying OW (using points). We are spoilt for choice in Australia, is there a good reason to chose MH J over CX, JL, QR or QF (A330)?

 

[get me outta here]

I don't go MH as there is still a lost plane containing many people and that makes me concerned.

 

[Flying Fox]

I avoid MH unless there is no other option.

A good friend reported to me that on her last Y trip a bathroom was unserviceable and the other bathrooms had long lines. When she got to use the bathrooms they were filthy with wet floors for the duration of the flight with no cleaning done by the crew. Cabin crew service was also poor with a general dis-interested attitude. Catering standards had also fallen in the last couple of years.

 

[Ralphie]

For me it’s mostly just that of all the places I could stop over Kuala Lumpur interests me least.

But there is some emotional feeling that hundreds of people died in reasonably quick succession and they didn’t do enough to stop it. (Not saying this feeling is based in any logic, it’s emotional.)

 

[burmans]

Not saying this feeling is based in any logic, it’s emotional.

This goes to the crux of it in my opinion, despite all the claims about the differences between animals and humans being mainly our logical reasoning, plenty of evidence that emotions trumps logic more than vice versa.

 

[dajop]

plenty of evidence that emotions trumps logic more than vice versa.

Yes, agreed. I still fly MH, and even then, despite the fact that I've experienced turbulence on hundreds of flights, and that MH 17 definitely and MH 370 extremely likely had nothing to do with turbulence, can be a little unnerving encountering turbulence on MH in way that is not when encountering similar turbulence on QF, EK or SQ. Doesn't make sense at all!

 

[Anna]

No survivors from 2 flights will take more than a few years to fade from my memory.

But also, a flight in J when the seatbelt sign was left on for 4 hours for no clear reason (no turbulence), I was denied a cup of tea ‘for safety reasons’ because the sign was on, eventually I absolutely had to get up because my bladder was about to burst only to encounter the crew all enjoying hot drinks in the galley They at least had the decency to look sheepish about it.