Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5577178/

Topic: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: olddominion727
Posted 2012-10-01 21:50:14 and read 8005 times.

When did UA pull MNL? Seems like it would be a successful route. I am very surprised they don't fly it from SFO n/s. Can anyone shine some light on this?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: goldorak
Posted 2012-10-01 22:01:56 and read 7970 times.

I believe for the same reason all European airlines (except KL) have pulled out : low yields and astronomic local taxes imposed on foreign airlines.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: legacyins
Posted 2012-10-01 22:02:38 and read 7964 times.

Very low yield route. Filled with VFR and balikbayan boxes.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-10-01 22:05:31 and read 7947 times.

Passenger service to Manila was dropped in 1998.

Simply put it fell far short of financial goals. Manila did not match the revenue needed for the 3-class product UA operated across the Pacific. At the time of pull out the route has amassed reported large losses.

One bit of trivia - Manila had one of the highest network non-rev boardings. Probably another reason for its failure.

Freighter service continued till 2000.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2012-10-01 22:30:03 and read 7841 times.

If MNL hurts UA 3 class service, how about LAX/SFO-MNL on a sCO 772? Or NRT-MNL on a sCO 764? Or dare I say it, the 787? How were the cargo loads?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: TWA902fly
Posted 2012-10-01 22:49:01 and read 7783 times.

For the record, UA currently serves MNL from their hub in GUM.

'902

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: COSPN
Posted 2012-10-02 01:58:01 and read 7526 times.

UA has 11..... 737 flights per week to and from MNL 9 are MNL-GUM 2 are MNL-ROR-GUM... about 60% are USA and Honolulu bound, 30% Guam and 10% other Pacific Islands...

UA moves "lots" of pax between MNL and the USA, not like Delta or PAL but they are in the market

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: olddominion727
Posted 2012-10-02 10:28:54 and read 6942 times.

LOL I think everyone knows I meant the MNL market they purchased from PA when they bought the rest of the Pacific markets they serve  

Someone else has already mentioned it, but why not fly the 788 or 772 dual class? HA just entered the market like 4 years ago and they're doing well. I am sure the cost of business the is different.

Is that why the flights opt'd between HNL-MNL start in either LAX or SFO? to load pax from both cities?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: aznmadsci
Posted 2012-10-02 10:39:08 and read 6899 times.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 7):
but why not fly the 788 or 772 dual class?

A 788 could be possible in a few years, but the 772 could be used for another city pairing that have better yields than a MNL nonstop.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2012-10-02 10:47:34 and read 6858 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
One bit of trivia - Manila had one of the highest network non-rev boardings. Probably another reason for its failure.

That would appear that MNL has a significant number of airlines employees. Is this really true or does or does each employee have dozens of relatives and and many many buddy pass fliers. I know there is a significant market for low cost
underground tickets for travel to and from the Philippines. Can you shed any light on that?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: yegbey01
Posted 2012-10-02 10:53:48 and read 6834 times.

I remember searching for a business class ticket to MNL from DC last year.
Cheapest as DCA-ORD-HNL-GUM-MNL. But then I realized that it would be all on domestic business class.

But they sure fly to MNL!

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-10-02 11:06:15 and read 6773 times.

United has a JV with ANA and they jointly launched a NRT-MNL service only last year.

For practical business purposes the flight is fully a United flight as the JV is metal neutral. So no need for UA to send its own separate widebody equipment.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 7):
Someone else has already mentioned it, but why not fly the 788 or 772 dual class? HA just entered the market like 4 years ago and they're doing well. I am sure the cost of business the is different.

As I mentioned above UA has the ANA flight to MNL that is timed to connect across its Pacific network already.

But even a 2 class 787 would not be very ideal for MNL.
UA's configuration is pretty premium - 36 seats of lie-flat premium out of about 200 total seats.
In comparison HA does only 18 premium(non lieflat) seats out of almost 260 seats packed into its 763.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 9):
Can you shed any light on that?

I don't have a definite answer except at the pull down it was mentioned the flight had very significant non-rev boarding totals.

I know some UA stations like HNL (and reservations center), SFO have historically had significant component of Filipino employees so I'd guess they utilized the flight.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: Rocket45
Posted 2012-10-02 13:31:17 and read 5848 times.

I travel to Manila three times a year. Over the years the aircraft have been 747, DC-10, AB 330-200/300 and now 767-300. From Northwest to Delta. The 767-300 business class is the most uncomfortable of all of the aircraft. Ii just returned from the best trip ever. United 747 with those great flat beds, first time ever actually had a good sleep across the Pacific since Philippine Airlines' 747 upper deck beds. Connected to All Nippon 767-300, again lousy seats. Arrived in MNL at the infamous terminal 3. This was the most civilized arrival I have EVER had in Manila. Departure the same. On the return had a legal 60 minute connection from ANA to UA and an ANA aircraft that usually uses a bus gate. My trip docked at the farthest concourse and gate from UA but I made. The end result is that now planning to move from Delta to United.

The alternative is United all the way but as yegbex01 said "But then I realized that it would be all on domestic business class." That means 38 inches SFOHNL/HNLGUM/GUMNL. A long, long day and a noncompetitive option for this tall guy..

s.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: azjubilee
Posted 2012-10-02 13:47:40 and read 5713 times.

A routes failure cannot be attributed to a huge amount of nonrevs because in order to have a huge amount of nonrevs boarding, an airline has to have a huge amount of open seats. IF the airline has a huge amount of open seats, it's due to a slew of reasons, NONE of which are the result of too many employees, their families and "buddies" traveling.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: panamair
Posted 2012-10-02 13:54:58 and read 5632 times.

Quoting Rocket45 (Reply 12):
I travel to Manila three times a year. Over the years the aircraft have been 747, DC-10, AB 330-200/300 and now 767-300. From Northwest to Delta. The 767-300 business class is the most uncomfortable of all of the aircraft

Are you saying you flew a Delta 763ER to MNL? DL flies only the 744 to MNL (from both NGO and NRT) - unless there was an aircraft sub...

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2012-10-02 14:02:07 and read 5575 times.

Yields to MNL are low to begin with. Flooding the market with daily widebody service would cause a further drop in yield and there are better opportunities elsewhere in the world. If you really want to get there on UA you can go through GUM or take ANA from NRT.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: displane
Posted 2012-10-02 14:31:38 and read 5402 times.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 9):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
One bit of trivia - Manila had one of the highest network non-rev boardings. Probably another reason for its failure.

That would appear that MNL has a significant number of airlines employees. Is this really true or does or does each employee have dozens of relatives and and many many buddy pass fliers. I know there is a significant market for low cost
underground tickets for travel to and from the Philippines. Can you shed any light on that?

I can attest to that. The flight would start in SFO-SEL(at the time) and then a change of gauge(747-200 or DC-10) to MNL. Both flts. had a long, long list of standby's.

Yes, there was a problem of buddy passes being sold- even I was approached several times by both family members and non, some even offered me cash but it just wasn't for MNL, other cities too.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: Tomassjc
Posted 2012-10-02 15:17:09 and read 5105 times.

Quoting panamair (Reply 14):
Are you saying you flew a Delta 763ER to MNL? DL flies only the 744 to MNL (from both NGO and NRT) - unless there was an aircraft sub...


I believe he is referring to the DL leg into NRT.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: Akiestar
Posted 2012-10-02 15:21:14 and read 5068 times.

Quoting Rocket45 (Reply 12):
The end result is that now planning to move from Delta to United.

If you're moving from DL to UA only because NH flies to Terminal 3, you may want to hold your breath: DL and CX are most likely moving to Terminal 3 this year.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: Rocket45
Posted 2012-10-02 16:10:26 and read 4783 times.

Reply to:
If you're moving from DL to UA only because NH flies to Terminal 3, you may want to hold your breath: DL and CX are most likely moving to Terminal 3 this year.

I am switching to United for the 10-11 hour pacific crossing in a flat bed seat and sleeping - it's amazing how it improves jet lag. The civilized Terminal 3 arrival was an unexpected bonus after the usual unregulated each person for himself immigration area and the chaotic mob scene of the lower level pickup area and parking lot. Using Delta this Xmas and the Xmas arrival is especially joyful.

And PANAMAIR, Sorry I didn't make it clear. Yes, the NRT-MNL segment has been flow in 747 equipment for the last 20-25 years. When it was a 747-200 and the only evening flight NRT/MNL the boarding area was like a Terminal 1 arrival with agents hawking a free hotel, a few hundred dollars in cash and a JAL flight the next morning in order to move oversales off the flight. More than once we sat at the gate while young agents tried to get oversales who somehow got on the flight off the flight. Today there are 4 evening departures albeit one is only 4 days a week. Missing from my observation are the Japanese business folks. On their own airlines I suppose. Most Delta passengers now seem to be connections from the USA.

I was also in Manila when United pulled with a very short notice. An insult to the Philippines but the above mention low yields and 100s of balikbyan boxes clogging check in counters were no the United way. United has grown up a lot since then in their Pacific operation.

Too wordy I am sure but a new member and I will learn.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: flylku
Posted 2012-10-02 18:20:00 and read 4112 times.

I did IAD NRT MNL on UA then ANA in July. Looked at the Guam routing but could not justify three legs over two. Given that the ANA leg was a 763, I suspect UA moves a fair number across Guam.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: Akiestar
Posted 2012-10-02 18:55:57 and read 3930 times.

Quoting Rocket45 (Reply 19):
I was also in Manila when United pulled with a very short notice. An insult to the Philippines but the above mention low yields and 100s of balikbyan boxes clogging check in counters were no the United way. United has grown up a lot since then in their Pacific operation.

They also generated a lot of ill will and a lawsuit or two from the MNL-based employees that they laid off. I heard that UA didn't want to return again out of fear of these lawsuits.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: timpdx
Posted 2012-10-02 19:29:47 and read 3754 times.

Why is MNL and Cebu for that matter among the most expensive places to fly to on the pacific rim? Philippines fares always seem absurdly high, it can be 500 more than HKG, BKK, TPE and other places of similar distance from the US. I have always wanted to enjoy the beaches of the Philippines but the fares are really high. I am going all the way to Singapore for the holidays at some $300 less than the cheapest consolidator fare to MNL. And I am not just talking about the holidays (where MNL is more than South Africa or Australia!) but year round, fares seem really really high for a Pacific Rim destination.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: crownvic
Posted 2012-10-02 21:20:42 and read 3222 times.

timpdx...Not sure why you say this. I travel to MNL several times per year in C Class and can personally tell you, MNL fares are far cheaper than any other pac rim destination and it has been that way for many years. Again, that is for C Class and not Y Class. I do not follow fares in economy across the Pacific because I would stay home before sitting in the back for 12 hours being tortured. What web sites are you trying to book with? In fact, when I go to HKG, I book MNL and purchase a separate ticket MNL-HKG and still save thousands.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: quiet1
Posted 2012-10-03 22:09:53 and read 2628 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
One bit of trivia - Manila had one of the highest network non-rev boardings. Probably another reason for its failure.
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 9):
That would appear that MNL has a significant number of airlines employees. Is this really true or does or does each employee have dozens of relatives and and many many buddy pass fliers. I know there is a significant market for low cost
underground tickets for travel to and from the Philippines. Can you shed any light on that?

It was legend (urban legend?) that MNL UA employees had a booming business selling their buddy passes. On a non-refundable basis, of course. The flights were often substantially oversold, with involuntary DBs, so success rate of being boarded on a buddy pass was hit or miss.

Now, ordinarily non-rev's rioting because they didn't get on a flight would prompt reports from airport employees to management and consequences to the employees who sold the buddy passes, but when the airport employees and local management were amongst the sellers, it kind of flew under the radar of UA headquarters.

It was not uncommon to have over 100 non-revs listed on the UA MNL-NRT flight, especially in the end days just before the route was terminated. I heard a few times it was over 200.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: COSPN
Posted 2012-10-04 00:15:46 and read 2640 times.

Manila sells tickets in US dollars so it usally much cheaper than buying a ticket origination in Japan of elseware in asia..

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: NWAESC
Posted 2012-10-04 04:37:53 and read 2533 times.

Quoting legacyins (Reply 2):
balikbayan boxes.

The bane of rampers everywhere!  

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Pull MNL?
Username: COSPN
Posted 2012-10-04 05:54:46 and read 2471 times.

Much better now at 50 Lbs used to be 70 Lbs !!!


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/