Geoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6 Posted (10 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4264 times:
(and yes I searched)
Why are there no direct services between London and Manila any more? Is it because it's not a major tourist destination for Brits? No business? We have large numbers of nurses and suchlike over here so I would have thought there would be *some* demand!
It's roughly the same distance as SIN - though I'm not sure about weather patterns and suchlike - so it should be in range for a B744 shouldn't it?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4225 times:
I believe that BA served Manila at one time (via another city) and the demand and yeilds were poor and the route was dropped.
Many European carriers have had little success at MNL - even PR dropped service to Europe after their financial problems.
I think that a combination of factors makes service from LON to MNL a difficult proposition - firstly, the Phillipines and the UK do not have the historical, cultural and business ties that UK has with, say, SIN or HKG. While Manila is a huge city and has a good amount of business activity, its not one of the money-centers of Asia, from a historical point of view - the Phillipines share more history with the US than Europe and the same if probably true demographic and immigration trends limiting the friends & family market, and tourism in the Phillipines is limted when compared to other nations such as Thailand and Indonesia.
The fact that major Asian carriers such as CX and SQ provide easy connections from Europe to MNL also cannot help the case for the launch of a nonstop service on the LON-MNL route.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 27305 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
The Philippines is in general a low yield VFR market. European airline service to country has decreased over the years with only KLM and Lufthansa remaining. BA served Manila until 2002 having operated a HKG-MNL tag on flight.
Manila for the most part is a secondary destination for European carriers. Tourism, trade and investment flows are limited between the EU and the Philippines as compared with other South East Asian countries.
An eventual return of PAL to Europe is possible as only it is interested in servicing the lower yield Filipino expat labor pool in Europe.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Cslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3974 times:
I think that it would make sense for the next European carrier to fly to MNL would be AY. AY has a strong strategy to use the advantageous geographic location of HEL as a connecting gateway to North and East Asia.
Diesel33 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3938 times:
Quoting Cslusarc (Reply 6): I think that it would make sense for the next European carrier to fly to MNL would be AY. AY has a strong strategy to use the advantageous geographic location of HEL as a connecting gateway to North and East Asia.
That would be great. However, if the UK and the Philippine have very few political ties with each other, Finland and the Philippines has virtually none.
HB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 71
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3758 times:
Quoting KL808 (Reply 5): I think they are doing very well on this route. Cargo is very strong on this route, and since AF has canceled its MNL route it now sends its pax via AMS
The route has just been upgraded late last year to direct service with B777's. It use to be operated via KUL (KL808 and KL807)
I know load factors aren't everything, but the nonstop AMS-MNL flight is almost never full, and KLM Philipines has just extended its promotional Business Class offer to Europe (booking class Z, for about USD2,300 to destinations Europe) over the entire summer peak period, so I think it's safe to say that there's at least some problems with the premium traffic levels.
On the other hand, KLM has upgraded the route frequency to daily, and that will remain unchanged for the winter season, albeit with a somewhat different schedule, as Westbound flights will operate daylight schedules to improve aircraft utilization and reduce ground time at MNL. I guess that if KLM sticks to daily operations at MNL, the route can't be losing money.
As for the lack of direct services between London and Manila, note that a couple of other Asian metropolis are lacking a direct link to London: Nagoya, Canton and Jakarta, to name just a few. I believe the slot restricted nature of London airports forces airlines to optimize, thereby dropping secondary -not necessarily loss making- flights in favor of reinforced connections to existing higher yielding destinations.
SK601 From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 976 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3628 times:
Every time when I check the booking figures ex AMS (and I am at SPL almost every day) the AMS-MNL flight is nearly full (at least 80%). On some days the flight is oversold by 15-20 pax, with a fully booked C-class as well.
BTW there is a LON-MNL flight, it departs from LON-south arpt, arpt code AMS
KL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3630 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 11): know load factors aren't everything, but the nonstop AMS-MNL flight is almost never full, and KLM Philipines has just extended its promotional Business Class offer to Europe (booking class Z, for about USD2,300 to destinations Europe) over the entire summer peak period, so I think it's safe to say that there's at least some problems with the premium traffic levels.
I think your right that premium traffic is very weak on this route, but cargo makes up for it.
Back in the days the route use to be operated via KUL and BKK on a B744 and the aircraft always left MNL almost half empty, but the cargo hold was always full.
FinnWings From Finland, joined Oct 2003, 640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
FCO-LHR-SIN (7664 mi) is not much worse than FCO-HEL-SIN (7150 mi), or is it?
No it is not, but when flying via Helsinki you will need only around 35min for transfer which makes connecting very easy here. At LHR I wouldn't even consider to take less than 2hrs transfer time and even then I would be worried is that enough to catch my next flight.
What about the over congested airspace over LHR and constant slot restrictions?
All this makes transfer at LHR many hours slower and more difficult experience than in Helsinki...