By Stephanie Jacob
Malaysia Airlines’ temporary baggage restrictions have landed it in the international press again and for all the wrong reasons. Safety might have been its utmost priority, but the airline must remember to manage its brand as well.
Did Malaysia Airlines Bhd need anymore bad press?
Of course not, but here we are again discussing and debating a decision taken and then reversed in the space of less than 24 hours – but having done further damage to what is already a severely injured brand.
And this may well be new chief executive officer Christoph Mueller’s first major faux pas since taking over the helm at the airline.
The airline’s Jan 5 decision to temporarily limit the amount of luggage its passengers could take with them on flights to its European destinations was quite simply bewildering.
For a short period of time, passengers flying to London, Paris and Amsterdam on Malaysia Airlines flights could only take one piece of 7kg carry-on luggage on economy tickets and two pieces of 7kg carry-on luggage on business or first class tickets.
Passengers were understandably angry, especially since no other airlines flying from Asia into Europe were resorting to such measures. Many in fact, such as Singapore Airlines, have started offering its passengers larger baggage allowances.
And Malaysia Airlines’ regional competitors were quick to assure their passengers that they would not be changing their baggage policies any time soon.
So why did Malaysia Airlines take this mind-boggling step which has inevitably blackened its already struggling brand name even further?
According to them it was entirely about safety. To understand their reasoning, it is important to note that for some time now Malaysia Airlines has been flying a longer route into Europe. This takes them over Egypt rather than flying over Iran or Afghanistan which is a more direct route and the one favoured by its competitors.
The aircraft requires more fuel for the longer route and the larger allocation means more weight is taken up to the aircraft.
Over the past few days, Malaysia Airlines said there had been “unseasonably strong headwinds” along this route and therefore the aircraft required even more fuel. This meant the fuel allocation took up even more of the available weight leaving less for luggage and cargo.
A Malaysia Airlines statement said: “Malaysia Airlines uniquely has been using a routing via Egypt which has been up to two hours longer than other carriers. The length of the route, combined with strong head winds, limited the airlines’ ability to carry baggage and cargo.”
It added that headwinds along the route over the last four days had been in excess of 200 knots and this could add up to an extra 15% fuel burnt on the B777-200 aircraft which Malaysia Airlines operates on its Paris and Amsterdam routes.
But why is Malaysia Airlines the only airline on this circuitous route? The airline appears to be using this route in an abundance of caution, putting this into place after its MH17 aircraft was shot down over Ukraine in July 2014.
One can sympathise with the airline as 2014 was a painful year for them with the two air tragedies of MH370 and MH17. Of course the first incident remains one of aviation’s greatest mysteries and the second was just pure misfortune given that there were other commercial aircraft in the area at the same time. And in both cases, it is debatable that the airline itself could have done very much to avoid the tragedies.
Nonetheless, the incidents resulted in the loss of 537 lives and so it is unsurprising that Malaysia Airlines would err on the side of caution, perhaps even to the point of being overcautious.
But what is frustrating and which has been a constant issue since the disappearance of MH370 is its messaging and marketing of its brand especially during times of crisis. And this is not the first public relations screw-up from the airline over the past two years.
Who can forget the cringeworthy ‘My Ultimate Bucket List’ promotion campaign the airline launched in September 2014? Bucket lists are usually a list of must-do’s a person wants to complete before they “kick the bucket” or in plainer English, before they die.
The marketing team’s failure to pull the campaign in light of the tragedies was lambasted for being insensitive and inappropriate.
Then just last month the airline said it was investigating why its pilots on a flight from Auckland had a differing flight plan from the one provided to the local air traffic control.
Although those in the industry suggested this was not entirely uncommon, it was another eyebrow raising incident that Malaysia Airlines which garnered international attention. Exactly what Malaysia Airlines does not need.
Incidents like these might have nothing to do with the tragedies of 2014. The problem, however, is they do not let travellers move on or forget them either. What is most frustrating is that most of this bad press comes as a result of self-inflicted wounds.
To give Malaysia Airlines the benefit of the doubt, the baggage restrictions decision was probably taken with safety being its utmost priority, exactly like they have explained. But surely there must have been another way to effectively and proactively message the issue and get ahead of the criticism
Perhaps the airline could have moved the cargo rather than the luggage it was carrying to its next flight or even put it on another airline. At least then they would have been dealing with companies or much larger shipments which were not as essential as a passenger’s clothes and essentials.
Or maybe they could have offered passengers compensation packages which included moving some to later flights which would have freed up some space and lessen the load. Yes it might have been expensive, but avoiding the negative impact on its brand would have made it worthwhile.
Malaysia Airlines might have had safety as its main concern, and rightly so. However, it is still selling a product and therefore must ensure that it manages its brand at all times. The airline is still suffering from two tragedies which arguably were not its fault as well as years of mismanagement.
The effort to rebuild already promises to be tough enough, at the very least the airline must ensure that it does not self-sabotage. At a time when it is rebuilding the brand, this is one faux pas the airline can ill afford.
Whoever before this heard of an airline which takes the passengers to the destination and leaves checked-in luggage behind to be brought in at a later time? Who would fly such an airline?
GRRRRR!!!
You must be logged in to post a comment.