Source via internal company announcement the introduction of Chicago service from Manila via Vancouver as from W19.

Mabuhay and welcome!

Just when I thought ORD-Asia fares couldn't get any lower. The bloodbath gets some fresh blood. If true, PR better start with 3 weekly otherwise it would be easier to just burn the money in a pile on the tarmac at MNL.

Maybe that means a new 5th freedom route replacing what was it PAL's YVR-LAS?

I can see why, the Filipino community is big in the Chicago area. But as stated above, ORD is drowning with Asian carriers and the fares will show it. Good for the consumer, but damn. Anyway, another beautiful bird at T5!

AirAfreak wrote:

Source via internal company announcement the introduction of Chicago service from Manila via Vancouver as from W19.

Mabuhay and welcome!

how many frequencies per week?

And ORD-Asia yields are going to take a further dive!

Umm...maybe 4w similar to their current MNL-YVR-JFK (That is shifting to non-stop MNL-JFK in Oct)?

It's another choice for Filipinos to/from MNL (A fair amount of those flying CX ORD-HKG-MNL right now) to/from ORD, big pictures wise I don't see how this would affect Asian carrier yield all that much, as it's still a one-stop to/from MNL while the other carriers offered one-stop to/from SE Asia (BKK/SIN/KUL/HAN/SGN) already.

Maybe a precursor to a non stop service when they have more A350s

They can already start ORD nonstop with existing equipment. If their 77W can fly to YYZ, surely it can fly to ORD.

The YVR tag would be better off serving routes that can’t be served nonstop from MNL, such as IAD or MIA. Not to mention that both cities don’t have nonstop links to YVR like ORD does.

Any information on the schedule?

LurveBus wrote:

They can already start ORD nonstop with existing equipment. If their 77W can fly to YYZ, surely it can fly to ORD.

Sure it could, at probably a cost of twice as much fuel per passenger. Not exactly the way to make money where yields are already low.

Is ORD subsidizing this?

This has been said about three times to me, all claiming "internal contacts".

Not putting any weight on this one until it becomes a public thing.

Dominion301 wrote:

Maybe that means a new 5th freedom route replacing what was it PAL's YVR-LAS?

Actually, replacing MNL-YVR-JFK, as JFK service is becoming nonstop to and from MNL. That said, while the 77W has 33" of leg room in Y, it's only 17" wide as it's 3-4-3 and no power in Y.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Just when I thought ORD-Asia fares couldn't get any lower. The bloodbath gets some fresh blood. If true, PR better start with 3 weekly otherwise it would be easier to just burn the money in a pile on the tarmac at MNL.

Best quote of my day!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Maybe that means a new 5th freedom route replacing what was it PAL's YVR-LAS?

Actually, replacing MNL-YVR-JFK, as JFK service is becoming nonstop to and from MNL. That said, while the 77W has 33" of leg room in Y, it's only 17" wide as it's 3-4-3 and no power in Y.

Ah right. YVR-ORD would have lack any 5th freedom competition, whereas CX has been entrenched for years on YVR-JFK.

Dominion301 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Maybe that means a new 5th freedom route replacing what was it PAL's YVR-LAS?

Actually, replacing MNL-YVR-JFK, as JFK service is becoming nonstop to and from MNL. That said, while the 77W has 33" of leg room in Y, it's only 17" wide as it's 3-4-3 and no power in Y.

Ah right. YVR-ORD would have lack any 5th freedom competition, whereas CX has been entrenched for years on YVR-JFK.

That actually forced AC to up-gauge YVR-EWR from an A319 to a B788/B789 once enough were online (30 J seats; CX has 6 F and 53 J seats on its 4-class B77Ws). For its part, PR has 42 J seats on its B77Ws. Amazingly, it took AC 20 years to get the message as CX has flown YVR-JFK since 1996. Before the arrival of the 4-class B77Ws, what did it use? (Obviously not the short-term leased A346s which were used only for nonstop service.)

zeke wrote:

LurveBus wrote:

They can already start ORD nonstop with existing equipment. If their 77W can fly to YYZ, surely it can fly to ORD.

Sure it could, at probably a cost of twice as much fuel per passenger. Not exactly the way to make money where yields are already low.

But would the supposed fuel savings be able to offset the landing fees and other associated costs with the YVR stop?

5th freedom traffic won’t seem to help either as YVR is well-connected to ORD.

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just fly it non-stop. Can someone explain the possible logic behind the YVR stop?

TWA1985 wrote:

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just fly it non-stop. Can someone explain the possible logic behind the YVR stop?

refuel?

c933103 wrote:

TWA1985 wrote:

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just fly it non-stop. Can someone explain the possible logic behind the YVR stop?

refuel?

The plane has the legs to fly ORD-MNL nonstop. However, this route is a terrible idea anyway. ORD-Asia fares are already low and PR is scrapping the bottom of a barrel that has already been scraped. Its has an extra stop and MNL traffic is already low yield.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Actually, replacing MNL-YVR-JFK, as JFK service is becoming nonstop to and from MNL. That said, while the 77W has 33" of leg room in Y, it's only 17" wide as it's 3-4-3 and no power in Y.

Ah right. YVR-ORD would have lack any 5th freedom competition, whereas CX has been entrenched for years on YVR-JFK.

That actually forced AC to up-gauge YVR-EWR from an A319 to a B788/B789 once enough were online (30 J seats; CX has 6 F and 53 J seats on its 4-class B77Ws). For its part, PR has 42 J seats on its B77Ws. Amazingly, it took AC 20 years to get the message as CX has flown YVR-JFK since 1996. Before the arrival of the 4-class B77Ws, what did it use? (Obviously not the short-term leased A346s which were used only for nonstop service.)

Pre-77W saw CX use 343s.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Is ORD subsidizing this?

Wouldn't be surprised at all, TBH...

MIflyer12 wrote:

Is ORD subsidizing this?

AA and UA would lose their minds if they found out ORD was subsidizing competing Asian service, rightfully so.

zeke wrote:

Maybe a precursor to a non stop service when they have more A350s

LurveBus wrote:

But would the supposed fuel savings be able to offset the landing fees and other associated costs with the YVR stop?

Maybe if PR gets this?..... .....



http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-re ... tests.html


The A330N would sure get its mettle tested...it's due to arrive in Manila right at the start of the typhoon season!

TWA1985 wrote:

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just fly it non-stop. Can someone explain the possible logic behind the YVR stop?

My guess is the timing of the inbound flight to YVr would allow for an end of business day flight 5-6pm from YVR to ORD, and the return flight would be that the first flight back in YVR departing from ORD.

Bound to take traffic away from the United flight which does that role now.

Plus the aircraft was just sitting on the ground for around 12 hrs in YVR, getting in around 4pm leaving 4am.

zeke wrote:

TWA1985 wrote:

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just fly it non-stop. Can someone explain the possible logic behind the YVR stop?

My guess is the timing of the inbound flight to YVr would allow for an end of business day flight 5-6pm from YVR to ORD, and the return flight would be that the first flight back in YVR departing from ORD.

Bound to take traffic away from the United flight which does that role now.

Both United and Air Canada have early morning flights ORD-YVR.
With no name recognition, no connecting passengers and a departure from Terminal 5, I hardly think PAL will make much of a dent in either carrier's traffic, frankly, except possibly for the bargain hunters.

FA9295 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Is ORD subsidizing this?

Wouldn't be surprised at all, TBH...

That's absurd

Any updating regarding the long-awaited expansion to Europe?
FCO? CDG? FRA?

FA9295 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Is ORD subsidizing this?

Wouldn't be surprised at all, TBH...

Salty a certain Michigan airport wasn't chosen instead? Since when does ORD subsidize routes? As stated above UA and AA wouldn't allow it and with the number of international airlines adding service and waiting for gate space at ORD so they can add service why would one need a subsidie from Chicago?

I don't see this service doing particularly well either. Seems like a shot in the dark on PAL's part.

ILS28ORD wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Is ORD subsidizing this?

Wouldn't be surprised at all, TBH...

Salty a certain Michigan airport wasn't chosen instead? Since when does ORD subsidize routes? As stated above UA and AA wouldn't allow it and with the number of international airlines adding service and waiting for gate space at ORD so they can add service why would one need a subsidie from Chicago?

I don't see this service doing particularly well either. Seems like a shot in the dark on PAL's part.

This. Why would ORD be desperate for PR?? They’re killing it with new service and T5 is overloaded as it is.

I agree that this flight will only erode already weak yields to Asia even more.

ORD does not subsidize flights. T5 can’t handle the traffic it has today.

Also, the Chinese economy is under pressure. China has a large amount of debt, the stock market is in the toilet, and a trade war won’t help:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/trade-w ... onomy.html

http://money.cnn.com/investing/china-st ... -meltdown/

http://m.scmp.com/business/china-busine ... each?amp=1

Let’s see how low fares go if business travel is cut and oil stays in the mid $60s.

If PR were to extend YVR to ORD, then there would be a reduced capacity to YVR as some passengers would be booked MNL-ORD. This reduction would make sense only if more money could be made. You have to bear in mind that you've got extra costs such as a crew needed for YVR-ORD-YVR and the need to overnight more crew at YVR compared with a straighforward MNL-YVR-MNL operation.

I was looking at schedules, too. Airlines like to fly the same schedule each day, and PR flies MNL-YVR daily. Let's assume that PR's ORD flights will also be daily. But as the flights from MNL arrive at YVR at 1440, it's really late to do YVR-MNL-YVR - as a guide, the latest YVR-ORD flight is UA's 298 at 1355. So, is PR's aircraft going to be parked at YVR until the next day and compete with UA's 664 which departs at 0700?

Of course, PR could try and retime its flights, but as you can see it isn't a simple job to add ORD flights to YVR.

I know this hasn’t been confirmed but PAL has publicly stated their intention to fly to ORD for a couple of years now. By no means does it mean it will happen but I wouldn’t be shocked if this does indeed happen. They had service to ORD back in the 80s via SFO and HNL and the Chicago area has a large Filipino diaspora and I don’t know what PALs cost structure is like but maybe they can make this work. I agree though if this happens even cheaper fares to Asia coming soon!

gunnerman wrote:

If PR were to extend YVR to ORD, then there would be a reduced capacity to YVR as some passengers would be booked MNL-ORD. This reduction would make sense only if more money could be made. You have to bear in mind that you've got extra costs such as a crew needed for YVR-ORD-YVR and the need to overnight more crew at YVR compared with a straighforward MNL-YVR-MNL operation.

I was looking at schedules, too. Airlines like to fly the same schedule each day, and PR flies MNL-YVR daily. Let's assume that PR's ORD flights will also be daily. But as the flights from MNL arrive at YVR at 1440, it's really late to do YVR-MNL-YVR - as a guide, the latest YVR-ORD flight is UA's 298 at 1355. So, is PR's aircraft going to be parked at YVR until the next day and compete with UA's 664 which departs at 0700?

Of course, PR could try and retime its flights, but as you can see it isn't a simple job to add ORD flights to YVR.

PR already flies 4 weekly YVR-JFK-YVR out of the daily MNL-YVR run so replacing JFK with ORD is a no-brainer as PR's MNL-JFK nonstop commences later this year.
As MNL-JFK goes nonstop, capacity for MNL-YVR increases.

Local times:
MNL-YVR - 3:00PM to 12:20PM, 2hrs on ground
YVR-JFK - 2:20PM to 10:35PM, 1:45hrs on ground
JFK-YVR - 12:20AM to 3:20AM, 1:15hrs on ground
YVR-MNL - 4:35AM to 9:00AM

YVR-JFK is an hour longer than YVR-ORD, so I imagine some sectors sliding an hour backward or forward.

gunnerman wrote:

If PR were to extend YVR to ORD, then there would be a reduced capacity to YVR as some passengers would be booked MNL-ORD. This reduction would make sense only if more money could be made. You have to bear in mind that you've got extra costs such as a crew needed for YVR-ORD-YVR and the need to overnight more crew at YVR compared with a straighforward MNL-YVR-MNL operation.

I was looking at schedules, too. Airlines like to fly the same schedule each day, and PR flies MNL-YVR daily. Let's assume that PR's ORD flights will also be daily. But as the flights from MNL arrive at YVR at 1440, it's really late to do YVR-MNL-YVR - as a guide, the latest YVR-ORD flight is UA's 298 at 1355. So, is PR's aircraft going to be parked at YVR until the next day and compete with UA's 664 which departs at 0700?

Of course, PR could try and retime its flights, but as you can see it isn't a simple job to add ORD flights to YVR.

PR already flies YVR-JFK 4x weekly (though JFK will be served nonstop 4x weekly come October) so the ORD flight wouldn't be much different from their current operation.

The Chicago flight operated via YVR is the only confirmation announcement internally, however, no schedule or flight frequency has been announced. Not a single rumor exists within the Company regarding subsidies by the City of Chicago, for the moment. Further European Destinations have not been mentioned as part of the international flight expansion program, either. I can only simply confirm Chicago as a new PAL destination.

Dominion301 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Ah right. YVR-ORD would have lack any 5th freedom competition, whereas CX has been entrenched for years on YVR-JFK.

That actually forced AC to up-gauge YVR-EWR from an A319 to a B788/B789 once enough were online (30 J seats; CX has 6 F and 53 J seats on its 4-class B77Ws). For its part, PR has 42 J seats on its B77Ws. Amazingly, it took AC 20 years to get the message as CX has flown YVR-JFK since 1996. Before the arrival of the 4-class B77Ws, what did it use? (Obviously not the short-term leased A346s which were used only for nonstop service.)

Pre-77W saw CX use 343s.

For HKG - YVR - JFK, CX in the history used 343, 346, 744 and 77W, the route started with the 744

yeogeo wrote:

zeke wrote:

TWA1985 wrote:

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just fly it non-stop. Can someone explain the possible logic behind the YVR stop?

My guess is the timing of the inbound flight to YVr would allow for an end of business day flight 5-6pm from YVR to ORD, and the return flight would be that the first flight back in YVR departing from ORD.

Bound to take traffic away from the United flight which does that role now.

Both United and Air Canada have early morning flights ORD-YVR.
With no name recognition, no connecting passengers and a departure from Terminal 5, I hardly think PAL will make much of a dent in either carrier's traffic, frankly, except possibly for the bargain hunters.

FA9295 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Is ORD subsidizing this?

Wouldn't be surprised at all, TBH...

That's absurd

Subsity isn't absurd as there has been talk about an incentive program for years. However....

AirAfreak wrote:

The Chicago flight operated via YVR is the only confirmation announcement internally, however, no schedule or flight frequency has been announced. Not a single rumor exists within the Company regarding subsidies by the City of Chicago, for the moment. Further European Destinations have not been mentioned as part of the international flight expansion program, either. I can only simply confirm Chicago as a new PAL destination.

Yes.

ILS28ORD wrote:

I don't see this service doing particularly well either. Seems like a shot in the dark on PAL's part.

The same thing was said about PR's JFK tag to YVR and now, JFK will fly nonstop from MNL soon. Who would've thunk.....

yeogeo wrote:

With no name recognition, no connecting passengers and a departure from Terminal 5, I hardly think PAL will make much of a dent in either carrier's traffic, frankly, except possibly for the bargain hunters.

As usual, PR's main target market here is the large VFR concentration in the area which certainly knows who PAL is. The premium traffic if they could get it would be icing on the cake.

carlokiii wrote:

As MNL-JFK goes nonstop, capacity for MNL-YVR increases.

amadorE175 wrote:

PR already flies YVR-JFK 4x weekly (though JFK will be served nonstop 4x weekly come October) so the ORD flight wouldn't be much different from their current operation.

I cannot find the link to the article now but in it, PR's president mentioned that a downgauge would be needed as the 77W was too big for the demand.

Traditionally, lower airfares are more important than brand recognition when it comes to the long-haul leisure traveler destined to/within the Southeast Asia Region. Brand recognition would be the least of PAL’s worries at O’Hare.

For example, I can assure many of you, the average Los Angeles (and Chicago) native passenger could not identify the company logos of Sichuan, Xiamen, and China Eastern or even the transpacific city pairs flown to/from North America.

I’m no longer surprised by the number of Asia-bound passengers queuing at the wrong ticket counter desk simply because the word “China” is attached to their itinerary. An example would be the confusion by the passenger checking in at China Airlines instead of Air China, etc.

AirAfreak wrote:

I can only simply confirm Chicago as a new PAL destination.

You're confirming your own rumor? Brilliant!

Devilfish wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

With no name recognition, no connecting passengers and a departure from Terminal 5, I hardly think PAL will make much of a dent in either carrier's traffic, frankly, except possibly for the bargain hunters.

As usual, PR's main target market here is the large VFR concentration in the area which certainly knows who PAL is. The premium traffic if they could get it would be icing on the cake.

AirAfreak wrote:

Traditionally, lower airfares are more important than brand recognition when it comes to the long-haul leisure traveler destined to/within the Southeast Asia Region. Brand recognition would be the least of PAL’s worries at O’Hare.

My comment was directed to a poster who was referring to the ORD-YVR segment where the VFR contingent is not relevant. Reread my post for context, gentlemen.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

Subsity isn't absurd as there has been talk about an incentive program for years.

Talk is cheap -especially around here; you're going to have to do better than that... Any source for O'Hare or the city underwriting an international route ?

yeogeo wrote:

AirAfreak wrote:

I can only simply confirm Chicago as a new PAL destination.

You're confirming your own rumor? Brilliant!

Devilfish wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

With no name recognition, no connecting passengers and a departure from Terminal 5, I hardly think PAL will make much of a dent in either carrier's traffic, frankly, except possibly for the bargain hunters.

As usual, PR's main target market here is the large VFR concentration in the area which certainly knows who PAL is. The premium traffic if they could get it would be icing on the cake.

AirAfreak wrote:

Traditionally, lower airfares are more important than brand recognition when it comes to the long-haul leisure traveler destined to/within the Southeast Asia Region. Brand recognition would be the least of PAL’s worries at O’Hare.

My comment was directed to a poster who was referring to the ORD-YVR segment where the VFR contingent is not relevant. Reread my post for context, gentlemen.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

Subsity isn't absurd as there has been talk about an incentive program for years.

Talk is cheap -especially around here; you're going to have to do better than that... Any source for O'Hare or the city underwriting an international route ?

Yeah, I know my talk isn't much. I just heard it floated around some time ago. I'm sure there are a few carriers that are probably holding out for it. I'll let you guess which ones.

My perception is that YVR-ORD-YVR o/d traffic is limited, unless incentives are offered just to fill seats. Likely ORD would eventually be discontinued if does not work or go nonstop if proves to be successful.