Airlines In The Philippines IV

[Solblanc]

When looking at PAL’s future needs, we should also look at their historical fleet. At one point they had 13 A343s. Those A340s weren’t just for long haul, but they also served medium-haul like RUH and HNL. And later on, they used them even on shorter flights to start BNE.

So obviously the plane with the most flexibility will be the 787-9.

I don’t think they’ll need the 787-10 as if you configure it in high capacity, it won’t be able to fly to the US west coast. If they were going to accept a loss in capability and just keep in medium-haul, the A330neo will do just fine.

So that’s why I feel like it’s going to the 787-9. No matter what the future brings, it’s a plane that can be used for anything.

[kilohakdog]

I think this out of topic but do we have latest info on PAF’s New Presidential Plane? I think this has been discussed last year and it seems that ACJ321neo was the favorite.

[filipinoavgeek]

https://mb.com.ph/2026/06/15/cebu-pacific-finishes-buying-airswift-moves-flights-under-cebgo

Starting July 1, AirSWIFT flights will be operated by Cebgo, and their flights will be under the DG code. Is this the official end of the AirSWIFT code or not yet? The news reports aren't clear.

[Evodesire]

Solblanc wrote

When looking at PAL’s future needs, we should also look at their historical fleet. At one point they had 13 A343s. Those A340s weren’t just for long haul, but they also served medium-haul like RUH and HNL. And later on, they used them even on shorter flights to start BNE.

So obviously the plane with the most flexibility will be the 787-9.

I don’t think they’ll need the 787-10 as if you configure it in high capacity, it won’t be able to fly to the US west coast. If they were going to accept a loss in capability and just keep in medium-haul, the A330neo will do just fine.

So that’s why I feel like it’s going to the 787-9. No matter what the future brings, it’s a plane that can be used for anything.

Question there is if the 789 will be used to complement the existing A35K fleet, it needs to have a tri-class layout consistent to the A35K. Now if they will do a tri-class layout on a 789, that may reduce seats to 280 from 295 on the A359.

[Solblanc]

Evodesire wrote

Solblanc wrote

When looking at PAL’s future needs, we should also look at their historical fleet. At one point they had 13 A343s. Those A340s weren’t just for long haul, but they also served medium-haul like RUH and HNL. And later on, they used them even on shorter flights to start BNE.

So obviously the plane with the most flexibility will be the 787-9.

I don’t think they’ll need the 787-10 as if you configure it in high capacity, it won’t be able to fly to the US west coast. If they were going to accept a loss in capability and just keep in medium-haul, the A330neo will do just fine.

So that’s why I feel like it’s going to the 787-9. No matter what the future brings, it’s a plane that can be used for anything.

Question there is if the 789 will be used to complement the existing A35K fleet, it needs to have a tri-class layout consistent to the A35K. Now if they will do a tri-class layout on a 789, that may reduce seats to 280 from 295 on the A359.

Porque no los dos? PAL’s A330s have two configs. A low-J 789 config can do economy-heavy routes like the Middle East or even FCO while a high-J config can go to the west coast and Australia where there’s more J demand

[filipinoavgeek]

Solblanc wrote

Evodesire wrote

Solblanc wrote

When looking at PAL’s future needs, we should also look at their historical fleet. At one point they had 13 A343s. Those A340s weren’t just for long haul, but they also served medium-haul like RUH and HNL. And later on, they used them even on shorter flights to start BNE.

So obviously the plane with the most flexibility will be the 787-9.

I don’t think they’ll need the 787-10 as if you configure it in high capacity, it won’t be able to fly to the US west coast. If they were going to accept a loss in capability and just keep in medium-haul, the A330neo will do just fine.

So that’s why I feel like it’s going to the 787-9. No matter what the future brings, it’s a plane that can be used for anything.

Question there is if the 789 will be used to complement the existing A35K fleet, it needs to have a tri-class layout consistent to the A35K. Now if they will do a tri-class layout on a 789, that may reduce seats to 280 from 295 on the A359.

Porque no los dos? PAL’s A330s have two configs. A low-J 789 config can do economy-heavy routes like the Middle East or even FCO while a high-J config can go to the west coast and Australia where there’s more J demand

Supposedly, the 787-10 is getting a higher-gross version that would allow it to more reliably do trans-Pacific routes. If PR is planning to get the 787-10, they might be considering that.

[JNC03]

Marcos Jr chartered a Airbus A319ACJ to Russia

[airline_builder]

yes owned by SMC, that ac is under an AOC once connected to the airline that is perpetually parked in subic.

[kilohakdog]

Registration says it is owned by a certain UAE-based Rotana Jet.

[airline_builder]

if it is RPC registered then it is SMC

[filipinoavgeek]

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/260617-z2ns26cxl

AirAsia suspending multiple routes, including notably Manila-Panglao. That's a bit of a surprise considering that's one of their bread-and-butter routes and they're a big player in that market. AirAsia PH must be doing really badly if even MNL-TAG is going.

[seven13]

I’m actually surprised they are suspending those routes instead of just temporarily suspending some frequencies

[filipinoavgeek]

seven13 wrote

I’m actually surprised they are suspending those routes instead of just temporarily suspending some frequencies

The big surprise for me is them suspending MNL-TAG since IIRC it's one of their only routes where they're actually doing well. Given their reductions, I'm wondering if the issue is a fleet issue or a money one.

[Arianespace]

Fleet issue, which of course is associated with money

[Arianespace]

In other news, Putin just pushed BBM to accept more Russian flights for the winter season. He also said the heli

S7 Siberian Airlines has applied to resume flights from Siberia, specifically from the cities of Irkutsk, Vladivostok, and Khabarovsk, to Manila and Cebu

IrAero currently flies directly from Irkutsk and Khabarovsk to Kalibo with tech stops in China

[Solblanc]

Arianespace wrote

In other news, Putin just pushed BBM to accept more Russian flights for the winter season. He also said the heli

S7 Siberian Airlines has applied to resume flights from Siberia, specifically from the cities of Irkutsk, Vladivostok, and Khabarovsk, to Manila and Cebu

IrAero currently flies directly from Irkutsk and Khabarovsk to Kalibo with tech stops in China

Well, we do need the tourists. So it's not like we don't benefit. And even if we don't use the overflight rights, it's always good to maintain good relations as we'll never know when we will need it again

[filipinoavgeek]

Solblanc, somewhat offtopic to earlier, but are Manila-Europe yields actually as bad as what A.net and some others claim, or is the real picture more nuanced than that? When PAL claims they aren't going back to Europe anytime soon due to weaker demand, do they actually mean it, or is it more of an excuse since they lack planes and don't want to annoy the EU? And as far as you know, apart from AF/KL, do other European carriers actually want to serve Manila and is the demand meaningful?

[Solblanc]

filipinoavgeek wrote

Solblanc, somewhat offtopic to earlier, but are Manila-Europe yields actually as bad as what A.net and some others claim, or is the real picture more nuanced than that? When PAL claims they aren't going back to Europe anytime soon due to weaker demand, do they actually mean it, or is it more of an excuse since they lack planes and don't want to annoy the EU? And as far as you know, apart from AF/KL, do other European carriers actually want to serve Manila and is the demand meaningful?

For any flight of a regular (like PAL or a European carrier, not a megaconnector like a mideast airline) full-service carrier to be successful, you need good point-to-point traffic, and connections at both ends to help fill the plane. PAL found out there was good J demand to London, which they tried to tap, but at the time, they had zero interline partners in LHR, so they were restricted by the London market alone. Compare that to their US routes where you can book further points that connect from every single destination they fly to. LAX can connect to LAS, YVR can connect to YEG, JFK can connect to BOS, and all of these itineraries are available on a single ticket.

There are so many secondary cities in the UK and Ireland with substantial Filipino populations, like MAN, DUB, or even EDI. And you know who has daily service to all of those cities? Turkish. Emirates.

So for a Filipino carrier to succeed in Europe, they need a good partner. Even CX partners with Lufthansa despite them being in different alliances. Can't rely on one city alone; you have to have feed.

Now, a European carrier has the network in Europe. They can feed these flights to Manila. KLM has been doing that, which is why they never stopped flying (they're also a preferred cargo carrier, but that's a different story). But what don't they have in Manila? Slots. Those are hard to come by. And even if you do have the slots, there's another curveball: European carriers can't use Russian Airspace. So investing in starting a route, which costs a lot, comes with an even bigger cost of complicated routes.

This makes sense if you look at the carriers that were looking at us: Finnair, ITA, LOT. For Finnair if Russian airspace were open to them, they'd be able to fly an A330 to Manila; a great network addition for less risk. For ITA, their A330NEOs could reach MNL if it weren't for the double whammy of Iran and Russia. LOT is right next to the Russian border, so their 787-8s won't be able to make it.

Anyway, PH-EU traffic was doing fine on EK/EY/QR/TK but the war in Iran happened. The winner there was TK. Nobody could get a seat on TK for a few months. After that, European carriers are thinking again. AF has already loaded up their schedule for the winter season.

Let's see if PAL will try LHR again now they're joining oneworld. They didn't have the best relationship with BA, as Arianespace will tell you. If they mended those wounds, PAL could totally restart LHR if it could get its hand on good slots, even with their old 77W. But alliance membership also goes other ways, and they could just continue to feed QR and MH with their codeshares and conserve their resources.

[filipinoavgeek]

Solblanc wrote

filipinoavgeek wrote

Solblanc, somewhat offtopic to earlier, but are Manila-Europe yields actually as bad as what A.net and some others claim, or is the real picture more nuanced than that? When PAL claims they aren't going back to Europe anytime soon due to weaker demand, do they actually mean it, or is it more of an excuse since they lack planes and don't want to annoy the EU? And as far as you know, apart from AF/KL, do other European carriers actually want to serve Manila and is the demand meaningful?

For any flight of a regular (like PAL or a European carrier, not a megaconnector like a mideast airline) full-service carrier to be successful, you need good point-to-point traffic, and connections at both ends to help fill the plane. PAL found out there was good J demand to London, which they tried to tap, but at the time, they had zero interline partners in LHR, so they were restricted by the London market alone. Compare that to their US routes where you can book further points that connect from every single destination they fly to. LAX can connect to LAS, YVR can connect to YEG, JFK can connect to BOS, and all of these itineraries are available on a single ticket.

There are so many secondary cities in the UK and Ireland with substantial Filipino populations, like MAN, DUB, or even EDI. And you know who has daily service to all of those cities? Turkish. Emirates.

So for a Filipino carrier to succeed in Europe, they need a good partner. Even CX partners with Lufthansa despite them being in different alliances. Can't rely on one city alone; you have to have feed.

Now, a European carrier has the network in Europe. They can feed these flights to Manila. KLM has been doing that, which is why they never stopped flying (they're also a preferred cargo carrier, but that's a different story). But what don't they have in Manila? Slots. Those are hard to come by. And even if you do have the slots, there's another curveball: European carriers can't use Russian Airspace. So investing in starting a route, which costs a lot, comes with an even bigger cost of complicated routes.

This makes sense if you look at the carriers that were looking at us: Finnair, ITA, LOT. For Finnair if Russian airspace were open to them, they'd be able to fly an A330 to Manila; a great network addition for less risk. For ITA, their A330NEOs could reach MNL if it weren't for the double whammy of Iran and Russia. LOT is right next to the Russian border, so their 787-8s won't be able to make it.

Anyway, PH-EU traffic was doing fine on EK/EY/QR/TK but the war in Iran happened. The winner there was TK. Nobody could get a seat on TK for a few months. After that, European carriers are thinking again. AF has already loaded up their schedule for the winter season.

Let's see if PAL will try LHR again now they're joining oneworld. They didn't have the best relationship with BA, as Arianespace will tell you. If they mended those wounds, PAL could totally restart LHR if it could get its hand on good slots, even with their old 77W. But alliance membership also goes other ways, and they could just continue to feed QR and MH with their codeshares and conserve their resources.

I was wondering since I saw your discussion on the other forum about that person who insisted that MNL is a "low-yield" market. Is it really, or is that some kind of misconception? I don't know why that low-yield thing is so common especially among foreign avgeeks and how come despite counterexamples or explanations, or even stuff like UA's wild success on SFO-MNL (it is literally the star of their transpacific network), it has never died.

[Solblanc]

filipinoavgeek wrote

Solblanc wrote

filipinoavgeek wrote

Solblanc, somewhat offtopic to earlier, but are Manila-Europe yields actually as bad as what A.net and some others claim, or is the real picture more nuanced than that? When PAL claims they aren't going back to Europe anytime soon due to weaker demand, do they actually mean it, or is it more of an excuse since they lack planes and don't want to annoy the EU? And as far as you know, apart from AF/KL, do other European carriers actually want to serve Manila and is the demand meaningful?

For any flight of a regular (like PAL or a European carrier, not a megaconnector like a mideast airline) full-service carrier to be successful, you need good point-to-point traffic, and connections at both ends to help fill the plane. PAL found out there was good J demand to London, which they tried to tap, but at the time, they had zero interline partners in LHR, so they were restricted by the London market alone. Compare that to their US routes where you can book further points that connect from every single destination they fly to. LAX can connect to LAS, YVR can connect to YEG, JFK can connect to BOS, and all of these itineraries are available on a single ticket.

There are so many secondary cities in the UK and Ireland with substantial Filipino populations, like MAN, DUB, or even EDI. And you know who has daily service to all of those cities? Turkish. Emirates.

So for a Filipino carrier to succeed in Europe, they need a good partner. Even CX partners with Lufthansa despite them being in different alliances. Can't rely on one city alone; you have to have feed.

Now, a European carrier has the network in Europe. They can feed these flights to Manila. KLM has been doing that, which is why they never stopped flying (they're also a preferred cargo carrier, but that's a different story). But what don't they have in Manila? Slots. Those are hard to come by. And even if you do have the slots, there's another curveball: European carriers can't use Russian Airspace. So investing in starting a route, which costs a lot, comes with an even bigger cost of complicated routes.

This makes sense if you look at the carriers that were looking at us: Finnair, ITA, LOT. For Finnair if Russian airspace were open to them, they'd be able to fly an A330 to Manila; a great network addition for less risk. For ITA, their A330NEOs could reach MNL if it weren't for the double whammy of Iran and Russia. LOT is right next to the Russian border, so their 787-8s won't be able to make it.

Anyway, PH-EU traffic was doing fine on EK/EY/QR/TK but the war in Iran happened. The winner there was TK. Nobody could get a seat on TK for a few months. After that, European carriers are thinking again. AF has already loaded up their schedule for the winter season.

Let's see if PAL will try LHR again now they're joining oneworld. They didn't have the best relationship with BA, as Arianespace will tell you. If they mended those wounds, PAL could totally restart LHR if it could get its hand on good slots, even with their old 77W. But alliance membership also goes other ways, and they could just continue to feed QR and MH with their codeshares and conserve their resources.

I was wondering since I saw your discussion on the other forum about that person who insisted that MNL is a "low-yield" market. Is it really, or is that some kind of misconception? I don't know why that low-yield thing is so common especially among foreign avgeeks and how come despite counterexamples or explanations, or even stuff like UA's wild success on SFO-MNL (it is literally the star of their transpacific network), it has never died.

Yield is always relative. The US has some of the highest incomes in the world and some of those routes command extremely high airfares and yet the margins of US airlines are very thin.

Emirates, on the other hand, is able to charge lower fares in all classes while most of their network is in the developing world, and yet they’re one of the most profitable airlines in the world.

“Low-yield” is an antiquated term used by people that think that chasing ultra-rich business travelers is the only way to make money in the airline industry. Yes, it helps to have high-rollers flying your airline, but it’s only one part of the equation