Airlines in the Philippines

[Arianespace]

tigz wrote

Looking back about a year ago it was pretty symbolic for this  Arab airline landing this behemoth at Naia as part of Airbus propaganda; the aircraft steered by a certain Capt. Desederio, a Filipino. What I understood from that was 2 other gates were rendered unusable to accommodate the wingspan. And yes that paper I was reading was hopeful of a regular service by this airline using this 4-engine giant about this time of the year. Of course understandably its not happening. I don't think there's enough ICQ to be put on duty, nor the govt can afford to pay for working on the wee hours to process the pax.

Not yet anyway. With Emirates at Terminal 3 they will have to contend traffic movements and with their airport slot available to them, the most feasible really is the midnight run. We will see them soon. There will be no problems at the gate as it will be parked in between two narrow-bodies of Cebu Pacific. The Emirates A380 flight was actually a propaganda of the airline more than the Airbus demonstration of its ability to fit at Manila airport. NAIA previously certified one of two available gates at Terminal 1 for A380 operations without affecting gate separation. The demonstration proved it can also fit Terminal 3.

seven13 wrote

PR112 is still on 4X a week but it's operating the whole year unlike PR114 on 3X a week on peak travel season only. Previously, these 2 flights operate during peak travel season only.

With PR126 slated to be a nonstop flight soon after all administrative works are done, I'm crossing my fingers that more passengers will take it and PR can sustain it profitably and hopefully, we'll see a daily service very soon.

With regards to SYD, the daily service aims to resume the Kangaroo route it once operated. Do you mean to include that in the "demand" you were referring to or just a demand for travel to/from SYD (excluding the Kangaroo route concept)? If the Kangaroo concept is disregarded, do you think PR could sustain a daily service to/from it relying only on other passengers connecting and originating here in Manila?

How I wish we could expand more into the Japanese market like new service to CTS and other big Japanese cities or star new service out from KLO.

On a different note, on recent months, notice how Chinese carriers both Mainland and Taiwan are extremely aggressive in expanding their network? On A.net I found the following:
---CA is (re)starting PEKYUL then onto HAV, CTU-CDG; then PEKAKL; has a pending application on PVGMAN   and BCN
---HU had applied for PEKYYC and PVGBRU, is starting XIY-SYD, XIY-FCO, PEK-MAN, PEK-TLV
---MU is expanding operations to JFK, new service to ORD and BNE
---MF to SYD from XMN and FOC, soon to add MEL service
---BCA is seeking entitlement to BHX
On the Taiwanese side, BR is very aggressive with a second MNL service and new CEB service next year; newly launched IAH and an upcoming IAD and ORD. 3X daily to SFO, 2X to JFK; Possible MXP and BCN;
this does not yet include CX's new services to ORD, ZRH, BOS, DUS, MAN and MAD.

I guess I cannot find everything that I found but I find it extremely aggressive. It's like we have the ME3 on the west and the Chinese on the East. I hope these expansions will have a little effect on the market(s) PR serves and they'll be able to maintain and grow operations in the coming months.

Actually, PR could have more passengers should they lower their prices. Thing is they are more expensive, than say via Taipei, Narita or Seoul.

Notice also that CCA is upgrading PEK from the usual B738 to the A333. Guess what connection are they aggressively pursuing? North America. And there is this usual CX which is a de facto airline of the Philippines.

[Eurest]

There's quite a few 6th freedom opportunities with Australia, with China presenting probably the most promising area as it is now Australia's fastest growing and most valuable tourism market worth an estimated 6.4B$
MNL is geographically in the sweet spot to take advantage of this traffic.
You can just look at FR24 and see where the China-Australia flights pass by

There's also the OZ-US traffic, which has also grown at quite the rapid pace to the point that US carriers are now expanding. PR could tap into the pax that do not want to connect into SYD or MEL from secondary cities like BNE. DRW, CNS or PER

The Kangaroo route provides add'l value to both the LHR and OZ flights, but it is no longer the golden egg it once was because of competition as well as most British tourists now favor Asian destinations like Thailand

As for China, their growth is fueled by local demand and not 6th freedom aspirations.
The Chinese carriers can only compete on price, but they can't compete on the soft product as well as the connecting experience in major Chinese hubs.
Most European backpackers are now wary on traveling on Chinese carriers after numerous horror stories after getting stuck in airports because they missed their connections due to Air Traffic congestion or they failed to realize they were stopping at a smaller Chinese city where their Visa was not valid

As for the Taiwanese carriers, wasn't the PH-RoC ASA amended last year to increase seats?
From 4,800 per week to 20,000 and then increasing further 5,000 each year?
RoC used to be PH's 4th biggest tourism market before the Batanes incident

BR and CI are definitely expanding with 6th freedom aims, especially as cross-strait restrictions have relaxed. As for connecting PH, the Taiwanese carriers seem to be a bit pricey unlike in the 90s when they were always cheapest.
I remember flying a CI 747SP to MNL in 1991 after an overnight stay at Taiwan airport hotel with a buffet breakfast where I first encountered sliced hotdogs for breakfast.

A quick GDS check for 1.27-2.11 MNL-LAX gets me

MU via PVG at $785
DL via NRT at $956
PR direct at $1151
UA via GUM, HNL at $915
OZ via ICN at $952
JL/AA via NRT at $971
CZ via CAN at $997
CA via PEK at $1200
BR via TPE at $1278
CI via TPE at $1326

Oh and never, never use the UA GUM to HNL flight. Since the merger they no longer serve food on board for the 8hr flight to HNL

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

As for China, their growth is fueled by local demand and not 6th freedom aspirations.
The Chinese carriers can only compete on price, but they can't compete on the soft product as well as the connecting experience in major Chinese hubs.

Most European backpackers are now wary on traveling on Chinese carriers after numerous horror stories after getting stuck in airports because they missed their connections due to Air Traffic congestion or they failed to realize they were stopping at a smaller Chinese city where their Visa was not valid

I myself was a victim of this horror story. I got the cheapest fare alright, enjoyed their marvelous airport, got plenty of lay over time yet missed my connection. No wonder its better connecting at HKG than PEK. If you say that MNL traffic is worse then you have not seen PEK.

[tigz]

Tell me, that routing Eurest listed via Pudong with China Eastern will not entice me no matter how cheap; of course unless you are the backpacking type and travel hobbyist where a glitch becomes a scoop of your story. CX to the westcoast via HK may shed you couple more hundred dollars but that is nothing if you get stranded in the most unhospitable terminal or some place you are not acquainted to. Its stressful enough dealing with counter agents and the last thing you would like is end up in a no name, no English hotel. HK is my best choice as you pretty much know its a tourist geared and organized city transportation wise. I also have better options for hotel chains for much needed points.

[Evodesire]

Saw this in PPSG

[Eurest]

From Boeing's RFP response me thinks based on what literature we can see

With the B787 having the same type certification as the B777, it would make sense from a crew staffing perspective. Making it easier to upgauge/downgauge capacity based on actual demand and not having to switch flight crews.
The B789 would also be cheaper.

QF has announced plans for some pretty long runs with their B789s [SYD-ORD, LHR-PER], so MNL-JFK non-stop should be no problem for a 250-260 seat B789

That said, I'd still prefer the A359LR for MNL-JFK as you can have a denser configuration for such a ULH flight. Part of what makes the 16hr SYD-DFW flight profitable is that they can take advantage of the economics of a large capacity aircraft
A 330 to 350 seat configuration may even be possible with the A359LR
Despite having a B77L, EK previously preferred to use the weight restricted B77W on DXB-LAX because of the revenue potential. And now, they have the even bigger 575T A380

[Evodesire]

Though I had been hearing again rumors among PAL pilots that the A350 is already a done deal. Again, these are just rumors. Well, I am pretty sure Arianespace will be teasing us with something soon.

[Eurest]

Do your friends have Airbus RFP response as well?

[tigz]

Aside from the bigger capex to go with A350ULR, more load translates to more fuel and I doubt PAL will be capable of attracting 300pax with competition from established Asian airlines. I'm reading Airbus will not add new fuel chambers but simply increase capacity of current fuel tank design which still add premium to this long ranger. Makes sense for SQ as they will revive non stop from Singapore but all business class on 170 seats so knowing the reputation of the airline, premium pax will pay off investment. On the other hand, I'm reading and hearing raves from AC 789 pax on the reduced jet lag comfort(increased humidity) and its now "all jet, no lag" mantra for their new long hauler. So the word is pax are rebooking to the effect that their flight will be on said aircraft. Well, I'm batting for PAL on this newgen Boeing as it will right size their market apart from the range it can give for future routes, and lesser caiptal outlay. I won't hide my North American bias as it pumps the economy that will keep my job!;)

[Eurest]

What I'm hearing though is that the first A343s are no longer being returned at the end of next year/early 2016, but are now on an extended lease.
The reason I'm told is that Airbus is providing the extended lease for free in exchange for the A359, until these are delivered. There will still be lease payments, but these payments will count towards the purchase price of the A359s

As far as PR's NY flight, I was informed by YVR airport peeps that PR allocated 250 out of the 264 seat A343 for JFK-MNL pax, and the fact that it was always sold out necessitated the switch to the B77W.
I've been unable to ask again how many seats of the B77W are allocated to JFK now but I'm hearing they are maxing out what the bilaterals allow which is percentage based on the aircraft used amongst the Cannada flights.
The Amadeus MIDT data also shows PR is not able to sell much, if at all any 5th freedom YVR-JFK seats as its JFK seats eating up the capacity of the aircraft, which prompted the direct flight as there is a loss of revenue potenntial from the Canada 5th freedom.

For international medium and long-haul, it seems YVR, MEL and LHR (now averaging 203 pax) are the only PR flights that are having trouble getting close to 300. Which still means PR needs a less a small long-haul plane similarly configured to the current A343 but much more efficient and dispatch reliable.

[seven13]

I'm surprised to see YVR on the list. Isn't PR doing well on the route? I have an impression that it is comparable to LAX and SFO in terms of passenger loads. Do you have any idea how YYZ is doing? If PR would start a 3X weekly nonstop and 4X via YVR to JFK, do you think it would be profitable? Another, if JFK will begin as nonstop, I'm quite skeptical if PR can maintain its current pricing for the route, as everbody mentioned, operating an ULH is very costly.

[Eurest]

I was told PR is flying more seat capacity into YVR and YYZ than actual demand to maintain the allowance for JFK
The actual demand for just YVR could go a daily A343.

Because of the current oil prices, a lot of the temporary workers that regularly fly to Calgary have diminished quite a bit.
CA is only the PH's 10th largest tourist source, around 109,000 compared to the US's 577,000

As for MNL-JFK non-stop, operating either the B787 or A359 makes the big difference on how PR can price the flight
I can't give you the exact fuel burn for either new aircraft as I have no first hand info
Right now, PR is using the B77W which at cruise spends around 8000-8100kg/hr
Both new twins are more efficient than an A333, which at cruise spends 5800-6000kg/hr

So PR can theoretically save around 2500kg/hr for the 15-17hr JFK mission. Not to mention the add'l fees not having to stop at YVR
The add'l landing and takeoff cycles stopping at YVR also adds to MX costs, not to mention the fuel burn climbing from YVR
So there are cost savings as well.
Even if you carry more tanker fuel for the non-stop, the efficiency of the new twins make ULH more viable now.

That's why you see SQ restarting non-stop US, as well as QF planning ULH routes as well because the new twins are efficient enough to make ULH viable, especially for PR with such a lower cost base.

[tigz]

Unless you are Filipino probably with some nostalgia for PAL will you take the 5th freedom flight. YVR is second to Toronto Pearson for most expensive fees so better for them to load up the YVR-MNL rotation and make the other one direct to JFK. On a side, a caucasian co worker did try the erstwhile YVR-Las Vegas flight and was somehow taken wary about the capabilities of crew for their diminutive stature! He also made a disparaging comment on the cabin service. But perhaps to give some consolation knowing he was talking to a Filipino, he did commended the smiles and hospitality. To those not accustomed to western traits, being cheerful but not promt doesn't balance itself. Anyhows I pacifed the fellow by telling him those small guys in the cockpit can land a 747 just the same and the A344 is just chicken for them, they will also take you safely in a prop plane to any gravel strip in the Philippines! To cut chase, the market is still Philippine blood so to speak. As for Airbus, well that's quite an effective ploy to lure PAL into their side. So what's holding back PAL on the announcement? The holidays is prime time to release a major scoop!

[seven13]

a little bit late,

would anybody know why PR will always be at a higher price versus other Asian carriers? Are they leveraging the nonstop flights to the west coast to Ph and back?

I know other Asian carriers can lower their prices because they can fill up the premium cabin thus are able to lower the prices on Y. I've heard alot of comments that PR's prices are more expensive versus other Asian airlines.
------------
I totally forgot about other fees PR needs to pay operating one stop YVR. Appreciate the additional info very much!
------------------

@tigz, YVRLAS has ended quite sometime now and probably there were some changes to the cabin crew's side compared to before. Maybe it's different now but I have to agree that the market of PR is still the Filipinos.
-------------

Read this from facebook

Philippine Airlines' international expansion continues with 5 new destinations, A350-900 HGW order
20-Nov-2015

Philippine Airlines (PAL) is further expanding its international operation as it grows its fleet and improves utilisation of its existing widebody aircraft. PAL’s international network will exceed 41 destinations in Jan-2016 compared to only 25 in Jan-2013.

[Eurest]

CAPA has had quite a history on being quite pessimistic on PR's aggressive expansion, but with low fuel prices, it's quite a good time to expand operations as its not as expensive to build up routes and the smart money is that prices will remain low with US crude inventory higher than expected, and China's slowing industrial growth.
LHR should serve as an important lesson that it is possible for PR to expand. It started with no Russian overflights, a particularly bad time slot but it is now quite profitable.
But PR was smart and conservative in its expansion. It started with just 4 flights and slowly expanded until demand and slots made it more feasible and viable.
PR's expansion is in tune with the PH's economy's improvement, which increases the spending power of Filipino's who love to travel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for 1 stop vs direct flights, carriers operating 1-stops will always have to price their product cheaper because of the added inconvenience of the stop-over
Directs flights have the premium of convenience so they will always be more expensive than 1-stop.

And you're correct, the more you have of the higher yielding front seats, the more you can sell Y seats of a lower fare matrix.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PR fleet news is interesting

Pushing back the cabin reconfiguration to 2017 now makes it possible to reconfigure all 7 414 seat A333s

Though I am skeptical of their prognosis of YYZ and ORD getting direct flights once the A359LR enter into service.
I suspect ORD will be initially 1 stop via YVR to grow it slowly how PR grew JFK.
It falls in line with the fiscally conservative 1-stop first before direct strategy we see a lot from PR

Instead of YYZ going direct, it may be more realistic for PR to add FRA or AMS before a YYZ direct or even CEB getting a second Western North American route

[seven13]

I have to agree. CAPA was quite pessimistic with its several analysis on PR. Good thing PR is able to get the current time slot in LHR as compared to the previous one. Do you think PR is in constant negotiations to get the most desirable LHR slots and will start 2 more frequencies soon to make it a daily service? BTW, what's keeping AMS and FRA from having a service from MNL? I think Arianespace mentioned (or was it another person) that FRA is being held back due to the Fraport fiasco; what about AMS and CDG?

I am also doubtful on the YYZ direct service but am hoping it can be a direct service one day. I also have to agree with the one stop ORD service before going direct, same formula as the JFK service.

Once the A350 (or B787) enters into service, I'm betting on LHR getting it and JFK. Would you think SYD and MEL would also switch to the newer aircraft? Other current destinations in mind which routes would be getting it? HKG may be a good candidate for crew familiarity.

---------------

Oh yea, an addition, PR and CI is entering into a codeshare agreement starting 01DEC.

[Eurest]

I think SYD & MEL might get the reconfigured A330s and not the A343 replacements

We could also see the A343 replacements doing Japan flights for familiarization flights, being a premium market as well as NH doing EIS assistance for new Dreamliner operators

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMS & FRA are both Level 3 airports, so I believe PR did not get the slots they requested in 2012/2013 when SMC was looking for routes to fly the B77W. I think they were allotted slots 1-2 hrs off what was requested

As far as demand, PAX figures are as not as high but there is J class potential for FRA while AMS will mostly be seafarer traffic. I believe belly cargo though is what will allow PR to sustain flights to either airports despite low load factors.

I'd post newer numbers but I got in trouble at work before when I posted these at the other forums, just to illuminate at the size of the market

2012 EU-PH O&D

1 LHR
O&D Pax 254,192
Largest Operators - CX (30.2% market share) EY (14.8%) SQ (12.3%)

2 CDG
O&D Pax 72,313 (less than a 1/3 of the UK market)
Largest Operators - CX (41.9%) EY (12.1%) EK (12.0%)

3 FCO
O&D Pax 69,647
Largest Operators - CX (26.4%) KU (15.9%) SQ (14.6%)

4 AMS
O&D Pax 64,894
Largest Operators - KL (43.8%) CX (34.6%) EK (5.9%)

5 FRA
O&D Pax 47,269
Largest Operators - CX (31.7%) EY (17.6%) SQ (9.4%)

If LHR is now just averaging 203 pax with a 5x weekly flight, PR would face a tougher task building up either FRA or AMS on a purely pax number.

I guess that's why PR was looking into MNL-IST-FRA as though direct is viable, it's not as economically feasible.
As for AMS, PR could connect AMS with any Russian point like VVO or DMO if its looking at trade ties like IST-FRA as Russia is the Netherlands 3rd largest Imports Partner

Perhaps with the monoclass A333 refurbishments in 2017?
MNL-IST-FRA
MNL-TLV-FCO
MNL-DMO-AMS

[Arianespace]

Evodesire wrote

Though I had been hearing again rumors among PAL pilots that the A350 is already a done deal. Again, these are just rumors. Well, I am pretty sure Arianespace will be teasing us with something soon.

Even if true, are speculations until formally announced. Yet again some of us here are better at preempting it.

[seven13]

Big differnce between LHR and CDG there. Did PR try the apply for CDG slotand FCO slot? Didn't hear any news or "rumours", rather, on these two destinations if it's the Ph's 2nd and 3rd biggest O&D. Do you think CDG will be economically feasible to operate as nonstop from MNL let's say 4X a wk, maybe, or better of with a one-stop service? I believe, others have pointed out, as well as the news, that FCO can be paired with TLV for pilgrimage groups.

I find those interesting city pairs interesting as it's quite a different formula in entering the EU market. I hope the current A330s will be deplyed to these routes in the near future.

[Arianespace]

seven13 wrote

Did PR try the apply for CDG slotand FCO slot?

They applied for AMS, CDG and FRA. Eurest is right. They never got the time they wanted.

Do you think CDG will be economically feasible to operate as nonstop from MNL let's say 4X a wk, maybe, or better of with a one-stop service?

One of them actually is 4x-3x on a A343.

I believe, others have pointed out, as well as the news, that FCO can be paired with TLV for pilgrimage groups.

PR doesn't have rights to FCO from TLV. They could very well do it from DXB. 5J might beat them to it.

I find those interesting city pairs interesting as it's quite a different formula in entering the EU market. I hope the current A330s will be deplyed to these routes in the near future.

The five cancelled A330 were supposedly Europe bound, IST, DMO, FCO