Airlines in the Philippines

[seven13]

With these reasons, it seems to me the current ASA benefitted us more than the UAE side, however, we don't know what other plans the ME3 are planning as to why they finally gave into flying to KSA and UK via UAE. There seems to more than what is presented. They gave too much with only 7 entitlements to receive from our side + provisions except if they'll leverage on the "assumed" fuel subsidy and kill competition on MNL-EU route. I hope this new ASA did not in any manner hurt the codesharing of PR and EY.

wouldn't the USA be seem out of the picture? Although a friend of mine took EY to ORD on his way back to Chicago.

[Eurest]

EK really needed that 3rd flight as it was reasonably timed for their US banks. As of the moment, EK needs to offer their US to MNL customers their free hotel on 8 hr layover. eating into their yields.

With the EU in the doldrums (less than 500$ fares ex-MNL to major EU cities = trash yields), US 6th freedom is the new battlegrounds for air travel (still at 1000-2000USD fares), thus the US3 vs ME3 debacle.
Also, the same reason why you see NH expanding its ASEAN market share not just by adding new routes like KUL, but also entering into codeshares with PR&GA.
US to Asia (not just China, but also to ASEAN) will be the prime routes for the next century.
I perfectly understand why PR is focusing on expanding US while EU is basically just LHR
It's the same reason why SQ wants a plane that can fly SIN to the US mainland
It's the primary reason why CX is begging the HK gov't for a new runway at HKG because it needs to add frequencies as well as capacity to US secondary cities.
US to Asia will be huge, and its best for carriers to establish market shares now

Accd'g to Amadeus MIDT, the ME3 [QR@MIA&PHL][EK@ORD,SEA&BOS][EY@IAD&DFW] are beginning to eat away at the market share of the US&JPY transpacific partners [UA+NH][AA+JL], even forcing out DL [no transpacific partner; forced to cut Asia capacity as it can't compete] not just to the lucrative East Asia markets [India, Pakistan, SriLanka], but also, to Asian Pacific markets.
I'd post the numbers but I got a memo from work after I posted those EU to PH numbers for 2012 over at the other forums.

At this rate, I would not be surprised if by the next year, the UAE gov't offers to build MNL a new airport because it really wants to fly 4x daily to MNL with bi-class A380s

[romantic_guy08]

seven13 wrote

With these reasons, it seems to me the current ASA benefitted us more than the UAE side, however, we don't know what other plans the ME3 are planning as to why they finally gave into flying to KSA and UK via UAE. There seems to more than what is presented. They gave too much with only 7 entitlements to receive from our side + provisions except if they'll leverage on the "assumed" fuel subsidy and kill competition on MNL-EU route. I hope this new ASA did not in any manner hurt the codesharing of PR and EY.

wouldn't the USA be seem out of the picture? Although a friend of mine took EY to ORD on his way back to Chicago.

One stop with QR from Southern U.S. (i.e. Texas, Miami) is a hit especially by Filipino seafarers. I've seen several agencies booking this itinerary for seafarers joining and disembarking in the southern U.S. and I have no doubt that this is the same for land based overseas Filipinos.

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

At this rate, I would not be surprised if by the next year, the UAE gov't offers to build MNL a new airport because it really wants to fly 4x daily to MNL with bi-class A380s

Don't blink because they already are. Unfortunately, their demands require transfer of all international flights to Clark from nearby NAIA which is unworkable.

http://alahliholdinggroup.com/aahg-ties-up-with-bcda-for-million-dollar-project-in-clark-green-city/

[Solblanc]

Speaking of Asia-US traffic, whatever happened to those plans to serve MIA? Was it ever really viable?

Also, if A350s are indeed capable of flying MNL-JFK, what are the chances that they can fly MNL-YYZ nonstop and delinked from YVR?

I'm honestly surprised that the 1-stop MNL-YYZ has managed to stay competitive despite the presence of CX.

[seven13]

I don't think PR will serve YYZ nonstop anytime soon as it is very much costly to operate ULH flights.
What's surprising with PR is that it has its own market to serve; the Filipino market. However, it's hard for them to stay afloat because the market they're in is very price sensitive, as we all know.  

[Arianespace]

There really are plenty of Filipinos in Florida. But if PAL wants to fly the route it could probably be via YVR. Considering however the fifth freedom restrictions, I reckon it could be a possibility should PAL start flying JFK direct. I mean both the B789 and A359 are well capable of servicing NY direct if they should order either of that plane. What more YYZ. So that tech stop should go extend elsewhere, maybe ORD or MIA perhaps, or Texas.

[Eurest]

I was in Central Florida last June and was surprised to see a healthy sized Fil-Am community over at Kissimmee. They even had a Bataan war memorial at one of the lakes there.
QR over at MIA seems to be their top choice, while the new EK at MCO is attractive for them as well.

As for YYZ I think they haven't increased the 70 seats allocation  and will probably continue to serve it as a co-terminal point as it seems it's still belly cargo that's making YYZ profitable.
If PR ever decides to restart LAS direct, it could offer LAS-YYZ as a 5th freedom route, as it's only Toronto-California that is disallowed by the bilaterals for 5th freedom

When JFK goes direct, it will be interesting to see which US city becomes the new 5th freedom point from YVR. IAH could also be a possibility as there are a lot of wealthy Fil-Ams in Houston, as well as neighboring Sugar Land

[seven13]

What if PR starts being creative and serve ORD/MIA/IAH westward since DXB/AUH can now be a stopover for the US?

What was the profitable aspect with MNLLAS via YVR back then? I remember someone posted way back that there were a lot of people being skeptical on the LAS service but were proven wrong.

On a LASYYZ flight, wouldn't passengers bound for YYZ at least need to have a US transit visa?

What if new services to the mainland be routed via HNL? What do you think is the viability it will be routed there?

[Arianespace]

I don't think they can compete with that. Its a long way eastward going back. In Europe, no airline is successful doing fifth freedom rights outside their home bases. ORD would definitely work for PAL, either direct or via YVR.

HNL is good enough for tech stops. Co-termination is allowed only in US mainland, just like Qantas. SAN could work though from there. But that would assume that you have at least 70-80% O&D between MNL-SAN. It could also work for the A330. What I'm not sure is if the market is ready for that.

[Solblanc]

In this case, shouldn't we be updating the bilateral with the USA? It is quasi-open skies, yes, but we're still limited in the number of cities that we're allowed to serve. We could hit that limit once the new planes arrive.

[Arianespace]

We do have nine gateway points in the USA to enjoy. But our airline is enjoying only four. PAL could actually put A320 in LAX for MIA extension. It would not however be an efficient operation.

[Eurest]

When NW still had an FA base in PH, I heard they wanted full open skies for US-PH.
I wonder if the US3 will still want that, especially now that they want to rescind Open Skies with ME3

DL could do LAX-MNL now that DL has made LAX a hub for Australia ops, since MNL is also handled by Australia division and not DL Asian division.
If DL makes DTW a 77L base, they could even do DTW-MNL and not be restricted like AA's heavily restricted DFW-HKG 17-18hr journey westbound

UA seems to see increasing demand for US-PH, as they have urged JV partner UA to upsize MNL ops to 77E from 763ER for the peak Winter weeks. Although seasonal at the moment, I would not be surprised to see MNL as the only other ASEAN city along with SIN to see B777 regional ops for NH
UA B777 to MNL seems to be a foregone conclusion now, only question is when, and if they'll use either the newly reconfigured 10 abreast "domestic" Hawaii configured B77E for HNL-MNL as continuation of domestic flights to HNL from hubs like IAH, SFO, DEN & ORD or do SFO-MNL with pmCO bi-class B77E (the ones doing EWR-HKG) or with the incoming B77W

AA & transpac partner JL seems to be content, though it seems AA is the one expanding now to Asia, unlike NH&UA relationship where NH is the one expanding Asia ops
Although LAX is an AA hub, they seem to be intent having their OneWorld (QF,JL, CX) partners do the long-haul flying

If PR go with Boeing and the B787, I'm sure Boeing lobbyists can urge favorable terms for PR if the US-PH bilaterals get amended without having to go full open skies.

With the increasing US military presence in the PH, I would not be surprised to see both UA and DL operating widebodies to MNL similar to how NW and UA flew 747s back when CRK & SFS were military bases

[Arianespace]

The Open Skies was already up and running a long time ago. We don't feel it being implemented because American carriers were making Tokyo their hub towards Asia. From PAN AM to United and Northwest to Delta.

Tokyo as a hub was understandable then taking into consideration the range limitation of most aircraft operating 20-50 years ago. None really was capable of reaching the rest of Southeast Asia. But when planes do become available they opened Hong Kong, the longest they have ever been and nothing more.

At least now the American carriers, i.e UA, is contemplating to connect the erstwhile colony in the far east with direct flight. Now that would be interesting.

[airboy007]

Speaking of US airlines' expansion, i remember reading somewhere that Continental was planning to fly SFO-MNL direct using a 787. Whatever happened to that anyway? That would make a serious drain from the lucrative PAL US mainland market.

[seven13]

Wait, so currently PH have an open skies with the US or is it still quasi-open skies with nine points in the US?

BTW, which 9 points in the US were included in the (pervious) PH-US ASA? I believe we have: LAX, SFO, JFK, LAS, SAN(?), MIA(?), MCO(?), IAH(?) and ORD(?)

[Eurest]

I believe SFO only recently opened as a 787 pilot base last August 2014, and only 5-7 787s are assigned in SFO, the bulk of the 787s are in IAH, LAX and DEN.
The ones in SFO are primarily assigned to Australia and China ops, perhaps when they receive more, they have some slack in the fleet to add more routes.
But last I heard all the 10 incoming B77Ws will be based in SFO replacing those 744s, the way the 787s are configured, it looks more likely if UA does MNL, it will be with the B77W

When US carriers do restart MNL direct, I suspect it will be BR, CI and CX that will feel the brunt of it, as PR is getting a good reputation amongst US and Canadiens as being more personable than the other Asian carriers in terms of crew response.

If DL fails to launch a direct service to MNL before UA does, then it could very well lose the highly lucrative US Gov't contract to MNL.
Rumor is DL is second guessing SEA as an Asian hub, as routes like HKG have just not worked.
With most of the NRT resources closed, like the catering company, DL may look to find a new suitable non-US Asian hub that will be cheaper to operate in than NRT, and have fewer competition.
NW had the strongest Asian Pacific presence amongst the US3, I don't think the legacy NW peeps still at DL will like the current state of DL in the Pacific.

Anyways, does anyone have more info on the QR flight that experienced dead air coming into MNL?
It's odd as the usually bad turbulence areas are near Japan or in central Asia. I guess Climate Change is starting to add new threats to air travel. No wonder PR is hiring more meteorologists.

[Arianespace]

Yes we do have turbulence here. It is not as rough as Narita but we encounter bad ones every now and then particularly at this time of the year. We do have plenty of thunderstorm here that rains with hale as big as your fists. It already broke a planes windshield, damaged a cone, a propeller and and engine. CAAP has plenty of those reports but nobody bothers to read them until Qatar incident happen.

What can I say, this plane happens to have plenty of stupid OFW's who doesn't bother to tie themselves up when the signs say so. I experienced it twice already so I should learned that it happens. Those who didn't like my seat mate simply flew. I can't help myself laughing. Really stupid for airline passengers but most Filipino passengers are like that. They really don't tie themselves up even when the light is on. And they stare at you when you start lecturing them about their very own safety.


Going back to the US carriers, Only 3 US carriers are allowed to fly the Philippines. Continental can't fly MNL even if they wanted to. Not even American Airlines have the chance to be here. Which makes Northwest now Delta and Pan Am now United the only airline to fly the Philippines. The  third one is of course Fedex.

By the way, don't be destracted by the erstwhile Continental Micronesia now flying as United to Micronesia. They have different set of rules and they are not allowed traffic rights to the mainland. And they are of course restricted unlike the Japanese gateway where these carriers enjoy fifth freedom traffic.

I discuss this before in the other forum that should these US carrier abandon Tokyo and fly direct MNL, they will lose the right (fifth freedom) permanently under a separate Japanese treaty. They call it the "Use it or lose it" provision.

Who would not want Japanese for a passenger? They almost fill the front while all of us enjoy the back. And they still have to deliver us where we came from. That is the reason why until now we still enjoy the sights of 2 DL B747's at our shores. There used to be 3 of them before. Now find any other South Asian country that has that significant traffic? None. You can find a single triple seven though.

As to US gateway, you can find most of them here, although we can select SAN, or LAS to replace the other but never in excess of the nine. And of course there is HNL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_the_United_States#10_busiest_US_airports_by_international_passenger_traffic_.282012.29 

[Eurest]

Asked someone from the US State Department about the US-PH ASA and he told me its basically still the 1980 Air Transport Agreement with amendments in 87, 89 and 95

US Carrier's Routes

{i} From Palau, Saipan, and Guam to the Philippines and return

{ii} From the United States via intermediate points to the Philippines and beyond

{iii} From the United States via intermediate points to the Philippines and beyond [All Cargo only]


PH Carriers Routes

{i} From the Philippines to Palau, Saipan, and Guam and return

{ii} From the Philippines via intermediate points to Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, and four additional points in the United States to be selected by the Government of the Philippines; and beyond to five countries, to be selected by the Government of the Philippines;"

" These four points will be selected by the Government of the Philippines 60 days in advance of proposed services. These points may be changed by the Government of the Philippines by providing 60 days notice." Stopover rights are permitted at Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, Honolulu, San Francisco, and the points selected by the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 2 bis.

(a) From October 1, 1996, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional eight U.S. points provided a stop is first made at one of the points referred to in paragraph (2) above, or provided the point(s) are served only on a code share basis;

(b)  From October 1, 1996, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional four U.S. points provided the points are served only on a code share basis;

(c)  From October 1, 1998, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional eight U.S. points provided a stop is first made at one of the points referred to in paragraph (2) above, or provided the point(s) are served only on a code share basis; and

(d)  From October 1, 1998, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional four U.S. points provided the points are served only on a code share basis."

{iii} From the Philippines via intermediate points to Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, and four additional points in the United States to be selected by the Government of the Philippines; and beyond to five countries, to be selected by the Government of the Philippines;" [All Cargo only]

So PH and US carriers can either be passenger, all-cargo services, or combination services (this means pax as well as cargo, which I've been told both DL and PR are combination services)

Consistent with its domestic laws and policies, each Party shall have the right: (a) to designate up to three airlines to perform scheduled combination service on Route 2 of Annex I; (b) to designate up to three airlines to perform all-cargo services on Route 3 of Annex I; (c) to designate one airline to perform both combination services on Route 1 a and all-cargo services on Route 1 b of Annex I; and (d) to withdraw 1/or alter 1/such designations. Such designations shall be transmitted to the other Party through diplomatic channels.

As of the moment, UA (ex-CMI) is designated on Route 1. DL is on route 2 and FX, PO and 5X are on route 3
Previously, the US designated Continental Micronesia (CMI), Northwest Airlines and United Air Lines for route 2.
As far as he knows, US carriers on route 2 are limited to 36 frequencies per week

1/ It is agreed that any U.S. airline designated on Route 1 of Annex I shall be a Pacific regional airline which does not operate scheduled combination air service between Saipan, Palau, or Guam, on the one hand, and nonstop to Hawaii and/or the U .S . mainland on the other.

Because of this, UA ex-CMI on route is designated as a different entity from current UA

As for the part of the agreement that governs the 5th freedom to the US, he cited this

For combination services, the designated airlines of either side may change gauge in third countries, on an authorized route, provided:

i.  For flights outbound from the homeland, onward transportation from the point of change of gauge is performed by a single flight having the same flight number with an aircraft having a capacity not more than the aircraft arriving at the change of gauge point;

ii.  For flights inbound to the homeland, transportation to the point of change of gauge is performed by a single flight with an aircraft having a capacity not more than the aircraft performing onward transportation from the point of change of gauge; and

iii.  Such onward transportation is a continuation of the transportation from or to the homeland of the airline."

He also noted that UA and NW had a big issue in the late 90s when the DOT was awarding the add'l frequencies. When UA lost to NW, UA threw a hissy fit and closed MNL ops.
This led to NW getting all the frequencies and serving MNL via KIX with a 742 from SEA, a 744 via NGO from DTW, and a 744 via NRT from MSP.
When NW retired their 742s when the A333s arrived, the KIX flight was terminated.
When DL and NW merged, the NRT flight continued onto JFK instead of MSP
Now, DL630 (NGO/DTW) and DL172 (NRT/JFK) are no more and its only DL275 to NRT

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

US Carrier's Routes

{i} From Palau, Saipan, and Guam to the Philippines and return

{ii} From the United States via intermediate points to the Philippines and beyond

{iii} From the United States via intermediate points to the Philippines and beyond [All Cargo only]


PH Carriers Routes

{i} From the Philippines to Palau, Saipan, and Guam and return

{ii} From the Philippines via intermediate points to Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, and four additional points in the United States to be selected by the Government of the Philippines; and beyond to five countries, to be selected by the Government of the Philippines;"

" These four points will be selected by the Government of the Philippines 60 days in advance of proposed services. These points may be changed by the Government of the Philippines by providing 60 days notice." Stopover rights are permitted at Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, Honolulu, San Francisco, and the points selected by the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 2 bis.

(a) From October 1, 1996, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional eight U.S. points provided a stop is first made at one of the points referred to in paragraph (2) above, or provided the point(s) are served only on a code share basis;

(b)  From October 1, 1996, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional four U.S. points provided the points are served only on a code share basis;

(c)  From October 1, 1998, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional eight U.S. points provided a stop is first made at one of the points referred to in paragraph (2) above, or provided the point(s) are served only on a code share basis; and

(d)  From October 1, 1998, airlines designated by the Government of the Philippines may serve up to an additional four U.S. points provided the points are served only on a code share basis."

{iii} From the Philippines via intermediate points to Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, and four additional points in the United States to be selected by the Government of the Philippines; and beyond to five countries, to be selected by the Government of the Philippines;" [All Cargo only]

The bolded part are the latest additions in 1996. How many have we used? GUM, HNL, LAX, SFO, JFK. So we have three more destinations to fly.

Consistent with its domestic laws and policies, each Party shall have the right: (a) to designate up to three airlines to perform scheduled combination service on Route 2 of Annex I; (b) to designate up to three airlines to perform all-cargo services on Route 3 of Annex I; (c) to designate one airline to perform both combination services on Route 1 a and all-cargo services on Route 1 b of Annex I; and (d) to withdraw 1/or alter 1/such designations. Such designations shall be transmitted to the other Party through diplomatic channels.

I forgot to mentioned that the 3rd airline was Continental, under the 1996 accord. The latest however belongs to Hawaiian. Second still belongs to UA. Same restrictions on route 1.

As of the moment, UA (ex-CMI) is designated on Route 1. DL is on route 2 and FX, PO and 5X are on route 3
Previously, the US designated Continental Micronesia (CMI), Northwest Airlines and United Air Lines for route 2.
As far as he knows, US carriers on route 2 are limited to 36 frequencies per week

1/ It is agreed that any U.S. airline designated on Route 1 of Annex I shall be a Pacific regional airline which does not operate scheduled combination air service between Saipan, Palau, or Guam, on the one hand, and nonstop to Hawaii and/or the U .S . mainland on the other.

Because of this, UA ex-CMI on route is designated as a different entity from current UA

He perhaps forgot to mentioned this clause.

II
  2.     Operating Permits
          B. The operating  permit to be issued  in  the name of ContinentalI Air Micronesia on Route  1 shall contain the following specific limitations:

(i) Continental  Airlines,  Air  Micronesia,  and Continental IAir Micronesia shall  not  advertise, sell, or promote  on-line, or interline  service by each of them or among  themselves  between  the  Philippines  and  Hawaii  and  the U.S. Mainland via Guam, Palau,  and/or  Saipan;  and

(ii) The flights or frequencies  operated by Continental IAir Micronesia on Route 1, shall  not  be  operated,  advertised,  promoted,  published or sold as Continental  Airlines'  flights  or frequencies.



As for the part of the agreement that governs the 5th freedom to the US, he cited this

For combination services, the designated airlines of either side may change gauge in third countries, on an authorized route, provided:

i.  For flights outbound from the homeland, onward transportation from the point of change of gauge is performed by a single flight having the same flight number with an aircraft having a capacity not more than the aircraft arriving at the change of gauge point;

ii.  For flights inbound to the homeland, transportation to the point of change of gauge is performed by a single flight with an aircraft having a capacity not more than the aircraft performing onward transportation from the point of change of gauge; and

iii.  Such onward transportation is a continuation of the transportation from or to the homeland of the airline."

The basis why I said PAL could station an Airbus A320 at LAX for MIA

He also noted that UA and NW had a big issue in the late 90s when the DOT was awarding the add'l frequencies. When UA lost to NW, UA threw a hissy fit and closed MNL ops.

I think the reason there was the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, coinciding with UA's difficult financial position after taking over PAN AM Pacific in 1992

This led to NW getting all the frequencies and serving MNL via KIX with a 742 from SEA, a 744 via NGO from DTW, and a 744 via NRT from MSP.

When NW retired their 742s when the A333s arrived, the KIX flight was terminated.
When DL and NW merged, the NRT flight continued onto JFK instead of MSP
Now, DL630 (NGO/DTW) and DL172 (NRT/JFK) are no more and its only DL275 to NRT

Oh my! The last time I flew last year there were still two DL jumbos.