CityAirline From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 642 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6850 times:
Philippine Airlines has been going on about relaunching Toronto for a while now, but not until now they have unveiled frequency and specific days of operation, so even though it's not officially announced, I thought it seemed serious enough to share:
The 250,000 Filipinos in Toronto would be served thrice weekly nonstop by the 77W. At the same time, the current YVR/LAS operation will be changed from four weekly MNL-YVR 77W and three weekly MNL-YVR-LAS 343, to four weekly MNL-YVR 77W and three weekly nonstop MNL-LAS 343.
This will mean a reduction of service at YVR from daily to four weekly, although PAL will try to negotiate with Canada for rights to maintain daily operation at YVR.
The new YYZ route and changes at YVR sounds possible and very reasonable to me, but I don't quite understand how they will go through with the changes at LAS without getting their CAT II lifted first.
Quote: Even with the US-imposed restrictions, PAL has managed to obtain approval from Canadian authorities to fly to Toronto starting November 28, timed with the delivery of the fourth Boeing 777-300ER.
The Toronto flight would alternate with the now daily Manila-Vancouver flight reduced to three-to-four frequencies a week, Ang said.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 2, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6424 times:
Sorry, I did not see this thread at all. (The subject certainly needs its own thread!)
As was posted in the other thread where this has been mentioned, this seems like an incredibly short lead time for such a long intercontinental route to be started - barely 3 months (and still without a formal/official announcement!)
I do acknowledge that MNL-PR's service to Canada (for the holidays) PLUS the big question regarding Vegas service -- to be done on such a short leash.
Quoting CityAirline (Thread starter): At the same time, the current YVR/LAS operation will be changed from four weekly MNL-YVR 77W and three weekly MNL-YVR-LAS 343, to four weekly MNL-YVR 77W and three weekly nonstop MNL-LAS 343.
First, PR currently has the winter schedule at MNL-YVR-LAS 4x wkly (2467) with YVR-only op'ing 3x wkly (135.) (To me, the equipment is immaterial.)
Next, I hope someone can explain to me how PR has figured out how to start flying nonstop from MNL to LAS (within 3 months!) I realize PR is not increasing the frequency of their operation in Vegas nor are they changing the a/c, but come on now, adding a new nonstop route directly onto U.S. soil???? When has the FAA gotten around to reinstating PR's Cat I status, and why hasn't that been announced anywhere?
Sorry, I remain totally unconvinced about any of this as it's been presented.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6380 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 2): I do acknowledge that MNL-PR's service to Canada (for the holidays) PLUS the big question regarding Vegas service -- to be done on such a short leash.
A.net is being a bit strange and it messed up the above paragraph and I couldn't edit it correctly. What I originally said was:
I do acknowledge that PR has talked about YYZ for a long time but for them to completely overhaul their MNL-Canada service (including the upcoming holiday travel season by essentially cutting the YVR-service in half) PLUS the big question about Vegas service, with less than 3 months lead time, is very hard to believe.
YVRSpeedBird From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6193 times:
Like I said in the other thread.... Philippine media is not to be trusted. Not saying that YYZ will not happen... but not this November, and not at the expense of YVR frequency which is quite successful for them. And like you said, Cat 2 is the biggest stumbling block to changing LAS service.
Over the last few months, newspapers in the Philippines have reported the following:
-PAL will start flying to LHR/FRA/CDG/FCO/MXP/MAD soon! - Hello? Last time a checked all Philippine carriers are banned in the EU.
-PAL will fly to JFK/ORD/SEA/IAH soon.... and other cities in the US with large FIlipino populations. Again.... Hello??? Cat 2???
-PAL will order more 77W's and the 787. We all know this order went to Airbus... but then again, 46 planes are unaccounted for in their planned order for 100 so there is still hope.
But then again.... it also doesn't help that Ramon Ang made these comments to the papers in Manila. The problem I see though is that the media doesn't fact check - which is a cardinal rule in journalism! They love sensationalism. They might as well be tabloids.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21481 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6171 times:
YYZ-MNL nonstop is 356 nm further than HKG. It would be one of the longest 77W nonstops. Westbound against often strong headwinds, I would expect some payload restrictions (and passengers to MNL usually have a lot of baggage). Such very longhaul nonstops in markets that are almost totally low-yield VFR traffic are seldom profitable.
MNL 7143 nm
HKG 6787 nm (CX uses the 77W and AC the 77L)
DXB-SFO 7041 nm (EK 77W)
DXB-LAX 7246 nm (EK uses 77L, not 77W, on DXB-LAX)
Are there any current 77W nonstop routes longer than 7143 nm?
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6125 times:
Hey 'SpeedBird, glad you got on board this thread as well and repeated your thoughts from your other post.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 4): it also doesn't help that Ramon Ang made these comments to the papers in Manila.
I had many questions about the new guy in charge of PAL when all those statements and promises were being tossed around earlier this year. I wasn't sure if he wasn't aware of the restriction his airline faces concerning flights to the US and Europe, or if he was just making ridiculous statements while ignoring them. I remain unimpressed with the new leadership of this fine airline and am anxious to see how all of these latest rumors play out...
Of course I do realize that none of these recent "articles" and rumors have made any mention of Mr. Ang or of anyone else at the carrier making any statements. And there still has been no official press release so I still remain very sceptical about everything we've seen and read in the last couple of days about the Canada and US route adjustments.
YVRSpeedBird From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5996 times:
Hey SANFan,
The new guy is very much aware of the restrictions on PAL. He's even said that his plans are contingent on the country getting out of Cat 2, and that he's willing to help CAAP by hiring advisors - all paid for by PAL. The problem is that the media ignores these important details. The only thing they report on is the "exciting expansion plans", so the public jumps on the bandwagon.
Quote: PHILIPPINE Airlines (PAL) is realigning its existing flight entitlements for Vancouver to service another destination in Canada.
PAL President Ramon S. Ang said the flag carrier plans to start servicing the Manila-Toronto route on November 30. “We will serve not only Vancouver but Toronto as well,” he said.
PAL is currently the only airline flying between the Philippines and Canada. It was assigned seven entitlements for the Manila-Vancouver route.
PAL Officer in Charge for Commercial Group Rafael Rollan said the airline will use three of the seven entitlements to service the Manila-Toronto route. The remaining four will be used for services to Vancouver.
“There will be four entitlements for our Manila-Vancouver [route] and the other three will be used to fly Manila to Toronto non-stop. The realignment of flight frequencies will begin on November 30. As we speak, we are finalizing the pricing. Maybe by mid-September the pricing will be uploaded in our web site already,” said Rollan in an interview.
PAL needs an additional seven flight entitlements on top of the existing seven but there are no available entitlements. The Philippine air panel has yet to set talks with its counterpart in Canada, said Rollan. “Ideally, if we can secure another seven or more [entitlements], that is what we want,” he added.
The airline is exhausting all means to secure entitlements to the North American country. Rollan said PAL wrote to Air Canada to ask if PAL could borrow the latter’s entitlements since Air Canada is not flying to Manila.
“We wrote [Air Canada] but they have not responded to us. They have seven unutilized entitlements. Hopefully, they could lend us their frequencies through code-sharing because this arrangement was done before,” said Rollan.
Quoting SANFan (Reply 3): I do acknowledge that PR has talked about MNL-Canada service (including the upcoming holiday travel season by essentially cutting the YVR-service in half) PLUS the big question about Vegas service, with less than 3 months lead time, is very hard to believe.
They seem dead serious on it, apparently. Word is going around on PinoyExchange (where the aviation thread has members who are PAL insiders) that bookings will be accepted by next month.
Quoting SANFan (Reply 2): Next, I hope someone can explain to me how PR has figured out how to start flying nonstop from MNL to LAS (within 3 months!) I realize PR is not increasing the frequency of their operation in Vegas nor are they changing the a/c, but come on now, adding a new nonstop route directly onto U.S. soil????
The blog in question is reliable in some things, but not so much in others. People are aware of the blog on local aviation fora, but quite a number take it with a grain of salt. Hence why I normally post links from newspapers to corroborate information if I need to.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 4): PAL will order more 77W's and the 787. We all know this order went to Airbus... but then again, 46 planes are unaccounted for in their planned order for 100 so there is still hope.
There is word going around that some of the remaining 46 planes will go to Boeing, however that remaining half of the order is still under negotiation. 2P's orders may also be included in that tranche of planes.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 4): The problem I see though is that the media doesn't fact check - which is a cardinal rule in journalism! They love sensationalism. They might as well be tabloids.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 7): The problem is that the media ignores these important details. The only thing they report on is the "exciting expansion plans", so the public jumps on the bandwagon.
The newspapers have reported repetitively (and I mean repetitively) that the Philippines is in Cat II and our airlines are on the EU blacklist, with PR and 5J having the most potential of getting out of the latter. PAL's frustration over Cat II has made quite a number of rounds in local media, so I don't see how you can just accuse Philippine media of not knowing the facts they themselves have published.
I will agree though: in general, our newspapers need to be more reliable and less tabloid-y. But for aviation-related matters (and business news in general), they're quite reliable.
Quoting SANFan (Reply 3): I do acknowledge that PR has talked about MNL-Canada service (including the upcoming holiday travel season by essentially cutting the YVR-service in half) PLUS the big question about Vegas service, with less than 3 months lead time, is very hard to believe.
As I posted in the link above, either they realign existing Canada service (most likely), Canada grants provisional entitlements (unlikely), or AC "lends" PR its unused entitlements, with provisions for a codeshare agreement (more likely, but not sure).
GARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1477 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5600 times:
Next Question, Can a A340-300 even fly nonstop between MNL and LAS? Westbound you have to
be looking at close to 16hrs. What about high temperatures in LAS for takeoff ability?
With the notoriously slow climb rate, a fully loaded A340 taking off on 100F+ temps wont be at full
cruise level until it reaches the midpoint to Hawaii!
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5552 times:
They will know clearly how many passengers at YVR are connecting from Toronto or other points in Eastern Canada. That I am sure can't be the worth half the flights out of YVR unless for some reason that market is soft. What YYZ would add is cargo and perhaps some other connecting passengers to other South Pacific nations such as Thailand. I would think there would be easier connections for the North East US than through YYZ. It has been rumoured here that PAL is starting service but I am surprized it would be at the expense of YVR, and as always who knows where the information is coming from.
This does coincidently tie in with the current push to increase SEAsia trade and especially oil shipments. So if the rumour is serious I am sure the Canadian government would be amenable to adjust bilaterals and agreements.
It is also rumoured another Chinese airline is going to start late in the year. That has to mean Air China or China Southern, unless I am missing someone. So lots of rumours all the time. Some are based in fact some based on wishful thinking.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5277 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 2): PR currently has the winter schedule at MNL-YVR-LAS 4x wkly (2467) with YVR-only op'ing 3x wkly (135.) (To me, the equipment is immaterial
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 8): PAL Officer in Charge for Commercial Group Rafael Rollan said the airline will use three of the seven entitlements to service the Manila-Toronto route. The remaining four will be used for services to Vancouver.
Then I imagine what we'll see is the continuation of the 4x wkly MNL-YVR-LAS service and the transfer of the 3x wkly MNL-YVR flights to YYZ. This I can comprehend as possible.
This still leaves PR with the issue of what to do with all the folks already booked for the winter, including the holidays, on the currently-scheduled daily service between MNL and YVR -- that's a lot of people to move to other flights that are probably already heavily booked! (Unless of course the Christmas and additional winter flights between Manilla and Vancouver are not heavily booked yet.)
Still seems like a very strange business strategy to me but we'll see what happens.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5198 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 11): YYZ-MNL has market yields less than 8cents (vs.12-13 for HKG). This is surely going to be a loss making routes even if PAL reaches a 99% load factor.
Have you actually flown from Toronto to MNL before.
As someone who used to fly three to four times a year to MNL from Toronto on business, I can tell you that there are more than a few Canadian companies that operate in the MNL area, and they send people back and forth quite often (manulife, Sun Life, Telus, etc...). Right now, CX and to an extent, AC gets the lion share of that business (all through HKG of course). Add on top, all the call centres that operate for US companies that could potentially use that flight.
I am not saying that the PR service will even match that of CX. But price is king. Even big companies will try to get their staff to fly PR - believe me.
YVRSpeedBird From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5122 times:
Quoting GARUDAROD (Reply 9): The newspapers have reported repetitively (and I mean repetitively) that the Philippines is in Cat II and our airlines are on the EU blacklist, with PR and 5J having the most potential of getting out of the latter. PAL's frustration over Cat II has made quite a number of rounds in local media, so I don't see how you can just accuse Philippine media of not knowing the facts they themselves have published.
I will agree though: in general, our newspapers need to be more reliable and less tabloid-y. But for aviation-related matters (and business news in general), they're quite reliable.
Actually, it's not accusing the newspapers. I'm reporting the fact that they're ignoring details. Prime example is your own link http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/co...realign-canada-flight-entitlements nothing has been mentioned of Cat 2. The ill-informed public, which includes FA's I've spoken to on my regular MNL-YVR commute, as well as Philippine aviation enthusiasts in other forums, are all singing the praises, hallelujah PR they're expanding etc, etc, etc... These people really need a dose of reality check. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome for PR's plans to be realized.
flyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5107 times:
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 13): Have you actually flown from Toronto to MNL before.
As someone who used to fly three to four times a year to MNL from Toronto on business, I can tell you that there are more than a few Canadian companies that operate in the MNL area, and they send people back and forth quite often (manulife, Sun Life, Telus, etc...). Right now, CX and to an extent, AC gets the lion share of that business (all through HKG of course). Add on top, all the call centres that operate for US companies that could potentially use that flight.
I am not saying that the PR service will even match that of CX. But price is king. Even big companies will try to get their staff to fly PR - believe me.
YYZMNL corporate/premium market is relatively tiny. It doesnt have the big J demand/premiums that ULRs need (see Tokyo/Beijing/Hong Kong). This is a flawed idea.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5036 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 15): Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 13):
Have you actually flown from Toronto to MNL before.
As someone who used to fly three to four times a year to MNL from Toronto on business, I can tell you that there are more than a few Canadian companies that operate in the MNL area, and they send people back and forth quite often (manulife, Sun Life, Telus, etc...). Right now, CX and to an extent, AC gets the lion share of that business (all through HKG of course). Add on top, all the call centres that operate for US companies that could potentially use that flight.
I am not saying that the PR service will even match that of CX. But price is king. Even big companies will try to get their staff to fly PR - believe me.
YYZMNL corporate/premium market is relatively tiny. It doesnt have the big J demand/premiums that ULRs need (see Tokyo/Beijing/Hong Kong). This is a flawed idea.
Not flawed...Believe me.
The economy in Manila is on turbo charge and the amount of foreign investment is mind boggling. Last November, I did JFK-YYZ-HKG-MNL on AA/CX in first class and there were a few people in Business class doing the YYZ-HKG-MNL on CX.
You are over generalizing that everyone who goes to MNL travels on cheap economy fares - which could apply to many other cities like BGK, etc....
Again, when I worked for one of the largest financial companies in Canada, I traveled there very frequently over a four year span and there was always business pax flying between MNL to YYZ.
I am not comparing MNL to HKG or NRT or PEK....But there's enough business to support a three weekly for sure.
Akiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4964 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 12): This still leaves PR with the issue of what to do with all the folks already booked for the winter, including the holidays, on the currently-scheduled daily service between MNL and YVR -- that's a lot of people to move to other flights that are probably already heavily booked! (Unless of course the Christmas and additional winter flights between Manilla and Vancouver are not heavily booked yet.)
I'm not sure if this is feasible, but they could permanently station an A340 at YVR for YVR-LAS, then upgrade YVR-MNL to 77W service. As the A340 nears retirement, this may be a good option to increase seats to a level closer to daily MNL-YVR service.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 14): Actually, it's not accusing the newspapers. I'm reporting the fact that they're ignoring details. Prime example is your own link http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/co...realign-canada-flight-entitlements nothing has been mentioned of Cat 2. The ill-informed public, which includes FA's I've spoken to on my regular MNL-YVR commute, as well as Philippine aviation enthusiasts in other forums, are all singing the praises, hallelujah PR they're expanding etc, etc, etc... These people really need a dose of reality check. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome for PR's plans to be realized.
It's not like every article discussing PAL's expansion plans has to mention Cat II and the blacklist, but the media already does that job anyway. Whenever U.S. expansion is discussed in local media, for example, Cat II is almost always mentioned, or it's about how PAL is complaining about how the government is doing nothing. Same with Europe service. (Although with the recent Airbus order, there is a faint hope that PR will be able to secure an exemption from the blacklist so it can restart services to the continent.)
I'll agree that a lot of people ride the bandwagon, but it doesn't mean that there are no people who are aware of the existing situation on the ground.
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 10): They will know clearly how many passengers at YVR are connecting from Toronto or other points in Eastern Canada. That I am sure can't be the worth half the flights out of YVR unless for some reason that market is soft.
I possess no hard data on this, but it is a known fact that there are more Filipinos in the Greater Toronto Area (around 172,000) than in Vancouver (around 79,000). That should be an indicator of something.
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4802 times:
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 17): I possess no hard data on this, but it is a known fact that there are more Filipinos in the Greater Toronto Area (around 172,000) than in Vancouver (around 79,000). That should be an indicator of something.
You're right, it's about 180,000 in the GTA to Vancouver's 83,000. That was in 2006.
I would argue, as well, that YYZ tends to have more premium traffic in general than YVR. Air Canada has always made mention of that with respect their Asian flights so I would imagine Asian carriers have a similar experience. PAL would also be trying to cater to the U.S.'s substantial Filipino population in NYC, Chicago, etc with its flight to YYZ.
The economy in Manila is on turbo charge and the amount of foreign investment is mind boggling. Last November, I did JFK-YYZ-HKG-MNL on AA/CX in first class and there were a few people in Business class doing the YYZ-HKG-MNL on CX.
You are over generalizing that everyone who goes to MNL travels on cheap economy fares - which could apply to many other cities like BGK, etc....
Again, when I worked for one of the largest financial companies in Canada, I traveled there very frequently over a four year span and there was always business pax flying between MNL to YYZ.
I am not comparing MNL to HKG or NRT or PEK....But there's enough business to support a three weekly for sure.
The economy in Manila is on turbo charge and the amount of foreign investment is mind boggling. Last November, I did JFK-YYZ-HKG-MNL on AA/CX in first class and there were a few people in Business class doing the YYZ-HKG-MNL on CX.
You are over generalizing that everyone who goes to MNL travels on cheap economy fares - which could apply to many other cities like BGK, etc....
Again, when I worked for one of the largest financial companies in Canada, I traveled there very frequently over a four year span and there was always business pax flying between MNL to YYZ.
I am not comparing MNL to HKG or NRT or PEK....But there's enough business to support a three weekly for sure.
The average recorded market fare for YYZMNL is less than $500 one-way. This includes the mix of the premium traffic you refer to, and the overwhelmingly price sensitive VFR travel. That delivers a yield of less than 6cents and a RASM of less than 6 cents. If PR can produce a CASM of less than 6 cents - then we good. But very doubtful.
Fueling up a 777 for a 15 hour mission is extremely expensive - and there's a reason why ULRs pretty much stick to Beijing/Shanghai and some Hong Kong.
sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15 Reply 20, posted (8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4640 times:
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 8):
The airline is exhausting all means to secure entitlements to the North American country. Rollan said PAL wrote to Air Canada to ask if PAL could borrow the latter’s entitlements since Air Canada is not flying to Manila.
I found this quote from the article interesting. How does Air Canada transfer its "entitlement" to a foreign airline without those entitlements counting as frequencies for the foreign carrier?
I have never heard of this and there is no precedent I can remember for it. AC can code share on a PR flight, or it can operate its own flights and have PR code-share on them, but since international frequencies are not the express property of the airline, but strictly speaking belong to their governments, I'd like to know what the heck this really means. In some cases, foreign airlines have asked Air Canada to support requests to the Canadian government for additional frequencies - PK has such an arrangement that Air Canada supports in lieu of express bilateral authority. With Air Canada's support, the Canadian government has granted PK more frequencies and more liberal use of them (abolishing the obligation to serve YUL, for example).
So PR can ask AC to support a request for more frequencies, but that would be an ad hoc process that has nothing to do with AC's entitlements under the Canada-Phillippines bilateral.
yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1679 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4505 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 19): The average recorded market fare for YYZMNL is less than $500 one-way. This includes the mix of the premium traffic you refer to, and the overwhelmingly price sensitive VFR travel. That delivers a yield of less than 6cents and a RASM of less than 6 cents. If PR can produce a CASM of less than 6 cents - then we good. But very doubtful
You have a source for this info? $500 each way!
So how much money has CX been losing then? They might as well stop flying pax into MNL.
I don't claim to have actual figures, but I was providing my anecdotal observations as I have flown the MNL-YYZ in business class at least 25 times between 2004 and 2011. Now would I give up flying CX or AC and not collect the miles - maybe not. But not everyone has the luxury of choosing their preferred carrier when your employer is shelling 10k for the flight.
I wonder how the YVR run is doing then for PR? That's also a long haul flight and I don't think YVR generates higher yields than YYZ.
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4377 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 19): The average recorded market fare for YYZMNL is less than $500 one-way.
Yes, a source would be good. Do you mean posted fares? Posted fares generally tend to be lower than what the average passenger pays, not to mention the average J class passenger.
flyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, RR: 53 Reply 27, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4548 times:
Quoting ACT7 (Reply 26):
Yes, a source would be good. Do you mean posted fares? Posted fares generally tend to be lower than what the average passenger pays, not to mention the average J class passenger.
Market size databases such as MIDT, PAX-IS etc. Even if you think the fare is understated by 15-20% for premium, the RASM on a flight like this needs to be close to 11/12 cents just to break-even. MNL won't deliver that kind of RASM, heck even HKG struggles to attain this given the distance.
There's no denying the traffic volume, it's simply the extraordinary cost of Ultra-Long haul ops (carrying fuel to burn fuel / crew complements / aircraft utilization etc).
iflypal From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 66 posts, RR: 2 Reply 28, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4510 times:
Toronto was never served on PAL metal-- Toronto however, was planned as a code share arrangement with Canadian Airlines International (aka CPAir) . Philippine Airlines had its code (PR) next to an existing Vancouver-Toronto Canadian Airlines (CP) scheduled flight. believe the designated CP flight was operated by Airbus A320 early evening out of YVR. Though the flight was loaded and published through the regular channels, including OAG, not a single code-share flight was operated. The service was announced a few months prior to the latter's s acquisition by Air Canada. Presumably, that merger squashed the joint service
By all definition, the announced Toronto service by PAL is new, not a re-launch.
I dont know how many people remembers PAL codeshare with TWA (Trans World) out of Los Angeles and San Francisco to New York JFK. That lasted around two years- it was odd seeing a Philippine Airlines (as well as Manila as a destination) in the TWA timetable. Towards the end, the service got convoluted as TWA terminated red-eye transcon flights in favor for a stop in St Louis.
Can you name the only US airline that was considered a PALSmiles (pre-cursor to Mabuhay Miles) partner?
Quote:
Philippine Airlines told TTG Asia e-Daily that a new PAL Manila-Toronto route would be launched November 30, in time for the delivery of its fourth Boeing 777-300ER. The service will be thrice-weekly, while the current daily Manila-Vancouver flight will be reduced to four times a week. The return route, Toronto-Manila via Vancouver, will be operated daily.
So we'll being PAL metal on a daily basis in the end and the non-stop will be the three weekly service. If understand this correctly.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 30, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4214 times:
Quoting ACT7 (Reply 29): ...new PAL Manila-Toronto route would be launched November 30, in time for the delivery of its fourth Boeing 777-300ER. The service will be thrice-weekly, while the current daily Manila-Vancouver flight will be reduced to four times a week. The return route, Toronto-Manila via Vancouver, will be operated daily.
Another interesting turn. Does that make sense under the regulations and service limits? If PR has 7 entitlements, does that allow stops, essentially serving 2 cities with the same flgiht (westbound at least?) One way to look at it is that PR is using 10 entitlements from Canada to Manila - 3x from YVR... I assume PR cannot carry local traffic between YVR.
It also seems to me that YVR will be seeing 11 weekly departures to MNL -- the 4x from LAS-YVR-MNL plus 7x YYZ-YVR-MNL. PLUS, if you include MNL-YVR-LAS, that makes 15 weekly departures by PR out of YVR! My head is spinning. I'm stopping now...
ACT7 From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4110 times:
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 32): LAS is a profitable station for PAL and it would be madness for them to cut it, especially while the Philippines is under Cat II.
Fair enough. Then it's tough to explain the rerouting. Nowhere does it say YVR will be 11 weekly.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 34, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
Quoting ACT7 (Reply 33): Nowhere does it say YVR will be 11 weekly
I just rethought this and I was wrong. (Bad math.) There will be 7 weekly departures from YVR to MNL but perhaps PR will NOT be permitted to carry local (YVR-MNL) traffic on the 3x YYZ-YVR-MNL flights, but only on the 4 wkly LAS-YVR-MNL flights? Can anyone clarify this part of the puzzle?
The correct math says that PR a/c will depart from YVR 11x weekly: 4x to LAS, and 7x to MNL, right? I think I've got it right now. Sorry, this topic doesn't need any more confusion...
sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15 Reply 36, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3911 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 34):
I just rethought this and I was wrong. (Bad math.) There will be 7 weekly departures from YVR to MNL but perhaps PR will NOT be permitted to carry local (YVR-MNL) traffic on the 3x YYZ-YVR-MNL flights, but only on the 4 wkly LAS-YVR-MNL flights? Can anyone clarify this part of the puzzle?
The most likely scenario is that it will operate YYZ-YVR-MNL with a blind sector between Toronto and Vancouver - no local, domestic traffic. That's been done before. Cathay, I believe, used to do it. But it's sub-optimal to be sure, even if 95% of the passengers embark/disembark in Toronto.
MEL From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 1082 posts, RR: 13 Reply 37, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3872 times:
correct, Cathay did operate YYZ-YVR-HKG temporarily with the A340-300 about 10 years ago.
Are there any other sectors around the world that have flights 5 hours long with no local traffic rights? Would be very interesting if that was the route PR would choose.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21481 posts, RR: 24 Reply 38, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
Quoting sebring (Reply 36): The most likely scenario is that it will operate YYZ-YVR-MNL with a blind sector between Toronto and Vancouver - no local, domestic traffic. That's been done before. Cathay, I believe, used to do it.
Air China also did it for a while when they first started service to Canada long ago. They used a 747SP originally. I recall watching it take off from YVR en route to YYZ a few times.
In earlier days there were quite a few routes like with long sectors with no traffic rights, for example BOAC LHR-JFK-SFO-HNL-HND route, and the same route via HNL to NAN and SYD (originally via SFO and later via LAX). QF also operated SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO-JFK-LHR from the 1950s through the mid-70s.
Obviously no local traffic on the domestic U.S. sectors but international passengers could stop over at U.S. points and continue on another BA or QF flight.
Another current example is QF's SYD-LAX-JFK service, where they can't sell LAX-JFK but international passengers can stop over at LAX and continue on QF to JFK, and vice versa in the other direction.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 15 Reply 39, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
Quoting sebring (Reply 36): The most likely scenario is that it will operate YYZ-YVR-MNL with a blind sector between Toronto and Vancouver - no local, domestic traffic. That's been done before.
Please note that I was not questioning local traffic between YYZ and YVR. I stated in my earlier reply:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 30): I assume PR cannot carry local traffic between YVR
I now realize that the end of that post ("and YYZ." got cut off. I don't think there's any question about that segment.
I am asking about the YVR-MNL sectors:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 34): There will be 7 weekly departures from YVR to MNL but perhaps PR will NOT be permitted to carry local (YVR-MNL) traffic on the 3x YYZ-YVR-MNL flights, but only on the 4 wkly LAS-YVR-MNL flights? Can anyone clarify this part of the puzzle?
This is the confusing part of the story -- for me anyway. Due to limited entitlements between Canada and the Philippines (7) which, as I understand it, is for ALL of Canada, will they be able to carry traffic from YVR to MNL on ALL the flights they will be op'ing between YVR and MNL in addition to the 3x weekly YYZ-service?
The eastbound flights are easy to see: 4x wkly MNL-YVR (& on to LAS) and 3x wkly MNL-YYZ. Westbound, however, we have 3x wkly YYZ-YVR-MNL PLUS 4x wkly LAS-YVR-MNL; is that not offering 3x wkly YYZ-MNL plus 7x wkly YVR-MNL segments when they are limited to 7 entitlements?
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 40, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3648 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 39): Due to limited entitlements between Canada and the Philippines (7) which, as I understand it, is for ALL of Canada, will they be able to carry traffic from YVR to MNL on ALL the flights they will be op'ing between YVR and MNL in addition to the 3x weekly YYZ-service?
Except that the Canadian government has made a real push for free-er and free trade with the South Pacific Nations. It is clearly a priority particularly with Thailand and then the whole Pacific Free Trade pact. Given that if there are limitations on flights and the government can see a direct correlation with trade and demand, the bilateral(s) will change very quickly.
We don't even know beyond the rumours heard here, if the flights proposed are accurate, or a misquote, or wishful thinking. We need some more clarification from the horses mouths as it were.
Akiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 40): We don't even know beyond the rumours heard here, if the flights proposed are accurate, or a misquote, or wishful thinking. We need some more clarification from the horses mouths as it were.
The horse's mouth in this case is Ramon Ang, and he has already said on several occasions that PR will fly to YYZ. I think that's proof enough that they're serious about it.
YVRSpeedBird From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3579 times:
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 41): The horse's mouth in this case is Ramon Ang, and he has already said on several occasions that PR will fly to YYZ. I think that's proof enough that they're serious about it.
And he also said a few months ago that PAL will purchase 787's & more 77W's. Until an official announcement is made, with schedules released and flights opened for booking, I'll stand by my earlier post that YYZ won't happen by Nov. 28th
Quote: "Several airlines, including Emirates and Qatar Airways, have expressed interest in the 777X, which will stretch the fuselages of the existing 777-200ER and 300ER. The new aircraft will also have new engines and composite wings, changes that will involve a lot more work to the aircraft compared to the 787-10X that Boeing is also studying, says its vice-president of business development and strategic integration Nicole Piasecki in an interview with Flightglobal.
Both Emirates and Qatar Airways have been vocal about their desire for a 777X successor sooner rather than later, but Piasecki says Boeing's customers are comfortable with an end-decade service entry date.
Pointing out that there will always be a trade-off between delivering a product sooner or holding off to include newer technology, she says: 'Our customers are really comfortable with our decision to put the most advanced engine technology onto this 777, and that means, by definition, that's really end of [the] decade. Are we comfortable with that? Yes. Because it's going to be so much better. It's going to obsolete the A350-1000 before the A350-1000 is even delivered'."
That 2020 777X service entry coincides with PR's stated timeline that its refleeting program would span eight years. As it is, they still have 77Ws coming that they're hard put to place in service... and other posters are already concerned about the looming overcapacity. Those will only be seven years old when the 777X comes on line. I had already posted a link why the 787 missed the first round at PAL .....and conditions where the 789 would be absolutely needed by PR won't be around till about the same time as the 777X's EIS.
As to Philippine media's unreliability.....seems that even the "venerable" AW&ST is lapping up PR CEO's every pronouncement. Must be a very slow week for aviation news .
Akiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2347 times:
BUMP-ing because of some breaking news from FlyerTalk. PR is starting YYZ on November 30, with flights now visible on KVS. Flights will depart three times weekly (every Wednesday, Friday and Sunday) with a decent departure time from MNL, and the route will indeed by MNL-YYZ-YVR-MNL.
This will be one interesting development, and good luck to Asia's first airline!
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 45, posted (8 months 22 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
With the current government push to expand Southeast Asia connections this route might work. If the Free Trade push with the Pacific Rim gains ground then the traffic is going to increase to a number of countries. Thai might be next to tag on some flights from YYZ as Thailand and Canada are already underway with talks as a precursor to the whole Pacific pact. Oil is a major motivator.
flyyul From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, RR: 53 Reply 46, posted (8 months 15 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
This is such an experience operation for such a low yield market. I give this route less than a year to survive. Unfortunately a.netters don't understand how muhch it costs to fuel up a 777-300ER and make tech stops
Akiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (8 months 14 hours ago) and read 1814 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 46): This is such an experience operation for such a low yield market. I give this route less than a year to survive. Unfortunately a.netters don't understand how muhch it costs to fuel up a 777-300ER and make tech stops
And I read a newspaper article this morning calling the Philippines the new "darling" of international investors. Low-yielding now, but I bet yields will rise in the future as the economy continues to improve.
Also, why be so condescending towards other users? I hope you remember that this is a forum: your opinion holds weight, but it's not as if you know better than others. Sheesh.
YVRSpeedBird From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (8 months 13 hours ago) and read 1721 times:
Quoting flyyul (Reply 46): This is such an experience operation for such a low yield market. I give this route less than a year to survive. Unfortunately a.netters don't understand how muhch it costs to fuel up a 777-300ER and make tech stops
Couldn't agree with you more. Remember, YYZ is only a consolation prize. Those 77W's were intended for LAX/SFO double daily, and to eliminate the GUM or HNL refueling stop. But with Cat 2, they needed to place those birds somewhere. It's obviously too big of a plane for YVR, so now they're trying to be creative. With PAL, new routes are always experiments because of the nature of MNL & the country in general - low yielding, and not a true connecting hub. So good luck to them.
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 47): And I read a newspaper article this morning calling the Philippines the new "darling" of international investors. Low-yielding now, but I bet yields will rise in the future as the economy continues to improve.
Yields will not rise, new "darling" or otherwise. Even BKK, which has more than twice the international business that MNL has, is considered low-yield, and foreign carriers are in a quasi-exodus mode. TG survives because it has a hub & spoke system - which PR does not have. And PR will not have this system because of the capacity constraints at MNL. And who would want to transfer in that crappy, 5-gate international terminal anyway. If they want to be a big player, they should get their act together now, force Cebu Pathetic to move out of Terminal 3 and takeover - as a stop gap measure until the government (or Ramon Ang), finally builds a mega airport somewhere somehow.
Akiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (8 months 10 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
I find this entire statement utterly incredulous.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 48): TG survives because it has a hub & spoke system - which PR does not have.
PR's network (both domestic and international) is already solely concentrated on MNL, excluding 2P and international flights departing from CEB and KLO. A single-terminal solution does not make a hub: there are airports out there where operations are split among multiple terminals. So how does it not have a hub and spoke system if the network as it is currently designed is precisely that: a hub and spoke system?
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 48): And PR will not have this system because of the capacity constraints at MNL.
There are hubs which are similarly capacity-constrained (NRT, LHR, JFK, ORD, heck SGN) but have been able to make hubs work. So why then are you saying that MNL can't because of it?
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 48): And who would want to transfer in that crappy, 5-gate international terminal anyway.
Don't blame PAL: blame the CAAP.
Terminal 2 is not the best terminal out there, but there are people who do make the transfer. PR knows that it has transfer passengers and tries its best to accommodate them: you're making it seem that transferring in MNL or with PR is as hard as transferring in, let's say, Saudi Arabia or SV before visa liberalization!
(There are also plans to expand Terminal 2 towards the Old Nayong Pilipino, which should make things easier in the long run.)
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 48): If they want to be a big player, they should get their act together now, force Cebu Pathetic to move out of Terminal 3 and takeover - as a stop gap measure until the government (or Ramon Ang), finally builds a mega airport somewhere somehow.
1. They've been getting their act together since San Miguel entered. :|
2. This is slowly happening: CX and DL are slated to move to Terminal 3 soon. While I agree that 5J should be evicted from Terminal 3, 5J's expansion plans envision it taking all of Terminal 3's capacity. It will be a tough act to follow, especially while we're waiting for final plans on the new airport, whether it's SGL, an expanded CRK or a new airport on a greenfield site either in Rizal or Bulacan. (This is probably the only statement that I will agree with.)
YVRSpeedBird From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (8 months 9 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 50): PR's network (both domestic and international) is already solely concentrated on MNL, excluding 2P and international flights departing from CEB and KLO. A single-terminal solution does not make a hub: there are airports out there where operations are split among multiple terminals. So how does it not have a hub and spoke system if the network as it is currently designed is precisely that: a hub and spoke system?
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 50): There are hubs which are similarly capacity-constrained (NRT, LHR, JFK, ORD, heck SGN) but have been able to make hubs work. So why then are you saying that MNL can't because of it?
Quoting Akiestar (Reply 50): Terminal 2 is not the best terminal out there, but there are people who do make the transfer. PR knows that it has transfer passengers and tries its best to accommodate them: you're making it seem that transferring in MNL or with PR is as hard as transferring in, let's say, Saudi Arabia or SV before visa liberalization!
Yes there are multi-terminal hubs out there, but making MNL the same defeats the purpose. It's fine if they can make it work with shuttle services every 5 minutes, within security, etc, etc.... but this being the Philippines, nothing ever works. Just look at the current situation. Transferring from PR to 2P is ridiculous between T2 & T3. The shuttle service is unreliable, never on time, and for a distance that short takes forever. For goodness sake, transferring Int'l to Int'l within T2 in itself is a joke. You have to get escorted by security because there is no secure corridor. If I was a TA, and a pax wants to travel YYZ-SIN, I would avoid selling tickets on PR when there are better options via NRT, HKG, etc...
PR wants to serve all these far-flung cities abroad, but it doesn't make sense. The country's market is not big enough to sustain these services on an O&D basis only. Especially ultra-long-haul considering the fuel cost and, as has been said over and over again, the low-yield nature of the market. Even the bread & butter SFO/LAX doesn't necessarily rely on O&D only on both ends. Forget the FIlipino diaspora abroad. We all know that they are only once a year VFR traffic. Business travel is the key. For them to succeed on YYZ-MNL, they need to offer beyond connections to other destinations in Asia, which means multiple flights a day to other regional cities apart from just HKG & SIN.
With regards to capacity constraints, your example of those cities are not very convincing. LHR is a business capital and they have a large O&D traffic. For years now, BA has been losing out to their European competitors (especially KL & LH) when it comes to connecting traffic because of the mess that LHR is. If MNL is a major business capital on par with London, then that's fine... but let's face it - it's not, and never will be. This is the same situation as JFK, which is why no American carrier has a true hub there. And NRT? We all know what happened with JL, which is now just recovering. And as good as ANA is, it is really just a small player in the transpac market, and Japan is a high-yield market thanks to business travel. They have also timed their limited regional flights perfectly well to accommodate transfers from their small transpac flights. And ORD? Look at what's happening with AA now? DFW is a better transfer hub for them, as is IAH for UA. These are the hubs that PR should NOT emulate. They should go for a HKG/ICN/SIN/BKK-style hub.
Your comments are very typical of the mentality that I see in Philippine politics and business though - aiming just for the "good enough", not the best. Like I said, I wish PAL the best of luck... because if they can't make this work (which is very probable due to the issues I mentioned), they will just remain the laughing stock of S.E. Asian carriers.... which is a shame considering the rich history they have. I fly right seat for one of the airlines mentioned in this thread here in MNL & I am very frustrated with the developments from all ends. It's like the blind leading the blind - no vision and no foresight. I'm starting to believe that Ramon Ang is not the saviour people claim he is.
Akiestar From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (8 months 8 hours ago) and read 1507 times:
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 51): Transferring from PR to 2P is ridiculous between T2 & T3.
You know PR offers an airside shuttle service for people transferring between Terminals 2 and 3 on PR/2P, right?
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 51): For them to succeed on MNL, they need to offer beyond connections to other destinations in Asia, which means multiple flights a day to other regional cities apart from just HKG & SIN.
This will not happen so long as PR is short on aircraft. The aircraft orders they have placed, plus the additional orders they're supposed to place which will complete their prospective 100-order expansion, will allow for more frequent service.
I wonder how well Project Winter (PR's much-talked about winter schedule realignment for this year), along with the rebranding of 2P back to PAL Express, will bide in this regard.
Quoting YVRSpeedBird (Reply 51): Your comments are very typical of the mentality that I see in Philippine politics and business though - aiming just for the "good enough", not the best.
Excuse me?! Where in my comments did I ever hint that I was all for mediocrity?
I'm sick and tired of the mediocrity my people are known for miring themselves into. I'm sick of pwede na 'yan as much as you or the next guy. But please don't tell me that my responses are an endorsement of the existing reality: oftentimes I see foreigners making comments about the Philippines without looking at why things are what they are, and think that Filipinos are incapable of leading themselves. That they think they know better than we do just because they're not Filipino.
This is precisely the mentality which I look down against: that just because you're Canadian and you happen to be in Manila often, you think you know better than people who have actually lived here, who have been educated here, and who are darn well aware of the problems we as a nation and as a people have. And note: I have not even lived here all my life: I know how life is like abroad and I know that the Philippines will probably never catch up to the likes of the U.S. or Poland unless there is a serious paradigm shift and a dismantling of the current balances of power. There's so much wrong with my country that it's sickening as it is: if people were so apathetic to it, you wouldn't have one million Filipinos leaving to go abroad in search of work every single year, with over 400,000 resident in Canada alone. You wouldn't have social movements (i.e. the No to Epal movement) combatting our social ills.
There's a lot to this discussion than what meets the eye, and on both sides there's a great deal of ignorance. I do think foreigners mean well for Filipinos when they see something wrong. But not everyone's caught up in mediocrity and shortcuts: there are good people out there who are oftentimes left out because all we see are the negative sides of the story, and we refuse to look at the positive side of things. This is what I hope people like you will see: that not all Filipinos are mediocre or are apathetic to quality. That we are, in fact, well-meaning people who also hope for things to be better.
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 642 posts, 
From Philippines, joined May 2009, 601 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 4721 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2011, 37 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21481 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5188 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
