Originally Posted by
jptan
Are the passengers flying to MNL pretty price sensitive (leisure v. business travel)? I haven't flown UA transpacific, but you're right in that PR's hard product isn't the very competitive, even in J. I know a lot of my friends end up flying PAL just because of their direct flights.
Originally Posted by
bart889
I think the service is highly bifurcated. Many US companies have call centres in the Philippines, so you get quite a bit of business travel from people supervising those operations. (I have a buddy in such a role - he likes the ANA Lounge at Narita, but wishes there was a direct UA flight from US mainland to MNL.) Most of the rest of the traffic is likely made up of Pinoy domestic workers in the US, who are extremely price sensitive.
I don't think I'd use the phrase "Pinoy domestic workers," either in the sense of domestics or in the general sense of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs); while I'm sure that's some of the traffic, the US does not tend to be a huge OFW market due to the visa requirements. In my experience, most US-MNL traffic falls more into the category of family visits -- first- and second-generation immigrants with family in the PI.
However, I agree about the price sensitivity.
Originally Posted by
katan
But in general I also wonder about the long term strategy for space/slots at MNL, for any foreign carrier to any destination. Terminal 1 is so old and overcapacity, that there is nothing left they can do with it. Factor that into the sprawl of terminal 2 and 3 without any real connecting infrastructure, and that the airport is now for the most part fully surrounded, there isn't much they can do to make that place better. Terminal 3 with NH and SQ feels already overloaded, so not only is UA's little needs worth going there they also can't absorb much more from terminal 1.
For UA, do they just stake as many claims as they can to the crumbling terminal 1 and let the other folks fight it out to move to terminal 3. UA doesn't need much. I wonder when CRK will really get traction beyond the OFW feed over ME carriers. Probably a very long time for UA to care, and too long for me to ever care.
UA has already moved to NAIA Terminal 3. I suspect they'll need to demolish Terminal 1 and replace it, but I don't know what the ROI would be.
Ultimately, CRK would make sense as a long-term gateway, but only if they can build the necessary infrastructure -- you'd need convenient rail access to Manila (à la HKG, ICN, NRT, etc). As it stands, I can't imagine a US business traveler wanting to fly to CRK in order to get to a meeting in Metro Manila. I do suspect that UA could fill CRK-GUM, but I don't know that they'd like the fares they'd get.
Originally Posted by
AlreadyThere
OK, with all this talk about connections through GUM to the CO routes, how about SFO or LAX - GUM nonstop? That would provide 1-stop service to MNL and more routes to other GUM-served cities.
SFO-GUM has been on my wish list for a while, but UA has a bit of a weird challenge there:
- They're clearly looking to boost nonstop traffic with long & thin routes, not build out additional hubs, so
- There's just not enough connecting traffic through GUM to justify two widebodies a day, and
- The GUM-HNL market is extremely important (and, likely, profitable).
If UA wanted to rebuild its GUM network -- reinstitute service to CNS, HKG, DPS, maybe add CGK, KUL, BKK, etc. -- then they could probably find enough traffic to support SFO-GUM or LAX-GUM. As it stands, I just don't see how they could do it profitably.
Maybe with the reconfigured, low-J 788, but I just don't see it.