They need a re-boot. Declare chapter 11. Start over again without unions.

But the bottom line is AA still make money and consistently for the past several years.
People say its because AA get this benefit or this route or that route.
But MAS had all of that before AA turned up and still lose money from time to time.
In fact , tax payers agreed to buy and own their planes , and lease back to MAS, and yet they lose money.

http://www.travel-impact-newswire.com/2002.../#axzz2u88R0KzN

MAS has also sold their HQ several years back.
Anyhow, a lot of us don't want our national carrier to die. There is no point talking about AA.
AA's service is quite lean to those of who are used to SIA or MAS. But the thing is AA has captured a different type of customer - no frill , cheap budget customers. People who used to take trains and express buses. I was on an AA flight several years ago. There were a couple of teenagers seated near me. They were excited because they got to travel on a plane (for the first time) from Penang to KL for relatively low price. A similar analogy is Digi. Digi as we know has poor coverage compared to Maxis but yet they make huge amounts of profit. Because Digi caters to a different customer.

I think MAS has the wrong strategy. They need to go for premium customers and create another subsidiary airline (with a different name) to compete with AA. The subsidiary airline will have a very lean cost structure. This way customers are not confused, is MAS a premium brand or a low cost brand. Lastly, the CEO has to bring down the cost and re-org from ground up.

agree.

You have to back many years ago since the 90s, with the government bailing out MAS many times with public money. If treated as a normal company, MAS would have been bankrupt years ago. It like pouring money down a bottomless pit.

actually almost everybody impacted directly or indirectly. For example EPF owns maybe 5% of MAS. I think even more "chalet", as MAS used to be several ringgit. I wonder how EPF will respond.