FlyerTalk Forums - Philippine Airlines: Good for Oneworld?

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- oneworld (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld-411/)

- - Philippine Airlines: Good for Oneworld? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/oneworld/1262375-philippine-airlines-good-oneworld.html)

Philippine Airlines: Good for Oneworld?

I ran across this article while surfing for airline news. Would there be room for PR in OW?

Quote:

PAL does not exclude also joining an alliance, most probably in a 2- to 3-year time frame. Oneworld could be one of the best options, as PAL enjoys a strong relation with Cathay Pacific, as well as Malaysia Airlines. The carrier’s network, with its extensive flights to North America and North Asia (especially to Japan), as well as Australia, could, in fact, fit very well into Oneworld's own global network. Flying to Munich could also create synergies with Air Berlin.

Optimism at Philippine Airlines

I don't see them joining any alliances until they at least have the EASA and FAA restrictions removed.

PR would plug a few holes in OW. With MH joining the need for a SE Asia partner is diminished, but there may be room for both. As the article says, they'd be useful for another route to go Asia <-> Australia, but with CX/BA/QF/MH that's pretty well covered in OW. They'd also open up HNL and especially GUM to the rest of Asia - aside from JL via NRT once daily that is poorly timed for connections, there isn't much OW access to GUM.

As for recovering from earlier woes, stranger things have happened - GA has transformed themselves as a pretty respectable airline. Though I don't understand what the fixation is with star rankings. Does the airline industry really see Skytrax rankings as definitive or persuasive?

I have flown PAL in two distinct occasions recently (domestic segments) and I was positively impressed by the hard product as well as the soft product. Plus, they now feature the best pre-daparture safety video I have ever seen on any airline.

Like Garuda, they are improving (and expanding) fast, and if service/product is as good on the 777-300ER (which features lie flat beds) I would say they would fit OW pretty well.

With the San Miguel group purcahsing a large share of the airline there seems to be some large re-structuring going on, hopefully they are able to get the PAL house in order and improve profitability, network and quality.

I think PAL would be a good addition as they can create a more robust Asian presence. They wouldn't be a major OW member like BA or AA but could be a smaller, yet still useful, partner like RJ and S7.

Safety appears to be a major problem in the Phillipines with an EU ban and a Category 2 rating. I don't know how safe PAL is or not but it can restrict interlining and codesharing rendering them less useful. As an airline I think we should assume they are safe and it is just the Phillipine authorities who disregard the importance of safety, unless anyone can find proof stating otherwise.

I have never flown on them so will take people's word on the site about them being alright in terms of quality.

I wholeheartedly agree that PAL is improving, but I wholeheartedly disagree that PAL should be headed for oneworld.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akiestar (Post 18939923)

I wholeheartedly agree that PAL is improving, but I wholeheartedly disagree that PAL should be headed for oneworld.

Why so?

I do hope not. For me, in the face of the much larger Star Alliance, one of Oneworld's major selling points is that all airlines within are relatively large carriers with good safety records.

It would hugely devalue the alliance to have an airline that doesnt meet safety requirements of the 2 main aviation regulators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 18945097)

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 18945097)

I beg to disagree. Philippine Airlines is the only Filipino carrier that meet IOSA safety standards. They risk loosing their IATA membership if they do not meet IOSA standards AFAIK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n773ph (Post 19470186)

I beg to disagree. Philippine Airlines is the only Filipino carrier that meet IOSA safety standards. They risk loosing their IATA membership if they do not meet IOSA standards AFAIK.

They still don't meet EU or FAA regs though, which is what counts if they a) want to fly there and b) improve their reputation.

In 2013, OW could potentially have 5 of the 7 5-star airlines. Right now, Philippine Airlines just doesn't fit that image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic Swinger (Post 18942576)

Why so?

He hates oneworld and CX plain and simple. :D :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 19470340)

Agreed. Oneworld is small, but prestigious (although AB and short haul AY aren't helping) with the BA/CX/QF/JL core and MH and QR coming up.

Further, I cannot see CX, MH, UL, QF, or JL being thrilled with another competitor. It's getting crowded down there!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supersonic Swinger (Post 18942576)

Why so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maortega15 (Post 19470359)

He hates oneworld and CX plain and simple. :D :rolleyes:

Uh, no. I in fact have respect for oneworld, and I like CX.

Let me quote myself from another thread why I will absolutely not support PR entering oneworld:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akiestar (Post 19221412)

Not too confident on oneworld, as you can see in my signature. HKG is too close to MNL and will most likely eat market share away from CX as PR has major expansion in mind. Plus, I'm afraid that PR will be devalued in oneworld, as was the ultimate plan of CX when PR went bankrupt in 1998: if my memory serves me right, they wanted to acquire PR so it could be subsumed into CX, and were only unable to do so because of Philippine constitutional restrictions on foreign equity.

If ever, it has to be SkyTeam or Star. VN and GA are only in SkyTeam because they're important key markets which the alliance wants a piece of, and PR codeshares with both of them: the codeshare can be used to PR's advantage as it can more easily funnel Vietnamese and Indonesian passengers onto PR's trans-Pacific flights in an alliance setup.

As for Star, MNL is too far away from SIN or BKK to pose any real intra-alliance threat the way MNL and HKG could turn out if PR joins oneworld. PR also plans to open new service to FRA, YYZ and JFK/EWR in the future: important Star Alliance hubs.

(As far as I know, the previous management had favored oneworld, but I heard the new management favors SkyTeam. I can't be too sure about the latter, but the former is confirmable.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akiestar (Post 19226941)

I don't hate oneworld per se: overall, the alliance has some strong members that I wouldn't mind flying again (CX, MA [RIP] and BA come into mind for me). What I don't like is an airline joining an alliance so that its role would be merely to feed the strong neighboring airline, rather than be given an incentive to induce organic growth.

The PR-CX relationship for me is contentious in this way: I'm afraid that if PR joins oneworld, CX will reap all the benefits of such a relationship to the detriment of PR (that is, if PR doesn't try to eat market share away from CX first when major expansion kicks in). If they've tried to do it before back when PR was in bankruptcy, what's there to say that they won't try it again?

I will not allow CX to benefit from the PR-CX relationship, if it makes it to oneworld, at the expense of PR. If PR will join an alliance, I want it to be valued for what it is, not just to be treated like some lackey of a big-shot oneworld player (CX) and the Philippine market as merely a feeder for Hong Kong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 19470340)

The EU and FAA bans are on the Philippine aviation sector as a whole, with Philippine Airlines being more the exception then the rule. That being said, I do agree that Philippine Airlines should improve their product should it truly wish to join oneworld.

So basically the post above about Akie disliking Cathay is 100% correct.

Is Austrian a feeder for LH in Star?
Is KLM a feeder for Air France?
Is Asiana a feeder for ANA is Star?

It is irrational to suggest that any airline will be a feeder for another if it joins the same alliance. PAL will do what they feel is economically viable and would have no obligation to feed any other airline. Any historical attempted purchases or geographic closeness isn't much of a reason, MNL-HKG is a similar distance from London to Madrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 19470340)

How come PR still flies to the U. S., then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ernestnywang (Post 19475556)

How come PH still flies to the U. S., then?

FAA Category 2 rating means they can continue existing flights whilst improvements take place, but not start any new ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 19475613)

FAA Category 2 rating means they can continue existing flights whilst improvements take place, but not start any new ones.

I see...and sorry I just realised it should be PR not PH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phol (Post 19475613)

FAA Category 2 rating means they can continue existing flights whilst improvements take place, but not start any new ones.

I believe they also effectively cannot change equipment. It wouldn't surprise me if this is why UAL still runs a 737 between Guam and Manila. Although it's certainly better than coach, 12 hours in a domestic F seat between HNL and MNL is a lot of hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren (Post 19498189)

The part about the equipment change is correct. As I recall, PR wanted to swap out the A340s it had flying to the US for the 777-300s it had coming in.

Is there any update on PR joining an alliance? Thanks.

This isn't hot off the press but I did not see it mentioned in here before.
http://www.philippineairspace.blogsp...ome-again.html

And it seems the category 1 upgrade is looming.
http://www.philippineflightnetwork.c...pated-for.html