Philippine Airlines now profitable

[Melburnian1]

Given the huge losses that Garuda Indonesia (GA) has suffered and the travails of a number of other airlines in the highly competitive southeast Asian market, this profit result, while not huge by Australian standards is worthy of a quick mention:

Philippine Airlines parent’s half-year profit soars | Inquirer Business

It is the better of the two half years so if everything was equal one might not expect the second half net result to be as good because that's the low season for travel.

Cebu Pacific (5J) is also profitable.

They are both doing better than say VA is in Australia or TG is in Thailand, or AirAsia is overall. I do not know if all these southeast Asian airlines have what we in Oz would claim are 'robust' accounting standards so that may always be a question, but at least on the face of it these results are a change to some of the losses reported elsewhere by other SEAsian airlines.

The refleeting strategy of PR is all over the place and seems to change with the wind. However, many have made adverse comments about QF's various fleet decisions (or at times deferrals) so it's not a problem unique to PR, a smaller airline than QF.

 

[albatross710]

Thanks for posting this and your comments on PAL. They operate in such a different operating environment from QF, VA or TG so comparisons are difficult.

The times I've flown in PR or 5J the flights are always full. Is this good/perfect marketing or is supply lower than what the market needs. My concern if it is the latter is that this can allow room for other operators to start filling the unmet demand and in turn start to compete for the other capacity. It seems that all of the Asian LCC have dramatic growth stories and for the time being are not always competing head-on for the exact same routes.

Two or more efficient airlines in RP must be a good thing for the economy and the opening up of the markets and potential.

Alby

 

[dajop]

Maybe because PR, unlike the big players in SE Asia, have very limited Europe exposure (LHR only, and even then only recently) they have not been affected so much by the rise and rise of the ME carriers.

 

[Limewood]

Make a ton more if they fix that awful MNL airport.

 

[dajop]

Make a ton more if they fix that awful MNL airport.

Maybe the opposite would be true ...

Although PR's terminal (T2) is not that bad, and most of their services go from there (a limited number from T3). Notably no PR services go from the awful terminal in MNL - that is T1.

 

[Melburnian1]

albatross710, PR and 5J certainly are (typically) not full to and from Oz for those parts of the year excluding school holidays and Holy Week! A look at Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics aviation statistics ('international airlines' activity by month) will confirm this. However within Philippines and on some Asian routes 5J has very good loads much of the time, as does PR on some international routes like LAX and YVR. LHR hasn't been startlingly good, allegedly.

dajop, I don't like PR's T2 at Manila. It's cold steel all round and like you're in a hospital emergency department.

However T3 is far better, but unfortunately PR's Oz flights arrive at and depart from T2.

 

[dajop]

dajop, I don't like PR's T2 at Manila. It's cold steel all round and like you're in a hospital emergency department..

It's better than T1 though. I've actually read elsewhere about grand airports and airport terminals being "vanity" projects. Maybe the minimalist approach of the terminal is a contributing factor to profitability .....

 

[banger2]

I would rate all 3 terminals at MNL as "functional". Whilst T3 is certainly newer (opening about 10 years after construction!), I felt it was too small to serve as the replacement for T1, which it does not anyway (serving mostly 5J). T2 seems airy but functional, the seating struck me as very "basic". T1 of course is simply old!

Dont know if anyone ever left from the old domestic terminal...now that was very old school....chaotic traffic outside....one departure lounge...walk the tarmac to the aircraft. I did like the donut shop in the departure lounge Slightly off topic....one of the funniest (??) events I recall at MNL domestic.... was driven on a minibus to my aircraft (that in itself was a disappointment driving past the jets...then past the newish 50+ seater turboprop, past even the old NAMC YS-11, finally to a LET L410 ). There was a guy standing near to the left engine with a small fire extinguisher when the engine started...hmmmm

 

[Melburnian1]

banger2, the 'old domestic' terminal is referred to now as T4 and remains in use, although from memory there's some change afoot - I think Cebgo is about to or has moved its A320s to T3 (the former Tigerair Philippines purchased by Cebu Pacific - 5J - and now some sort of strange supplementary airline but with older A320s as code DG.) In turn 5J may move all its ATR turboprop flights to T4 to free up some much needed tarmac room at T3, but I cannot remember where I read this.

I have only ever used Manila NAIA T4 for domestic flights and it is certainly different: having to walk close to numerous road vehicles undertaking all the tasks of a busy airport, but it's still quite safe, just not quite as nannystate as we've sadly come to expect in Australia.

While T3 would have 5J as its biggest airline client, PR (essentially 2P, but again it gets confusing) and the relocated from T1 SQ, CX, EK and so on are hardly insignificant. CX for instance has seven or eight flights a day from MNL to HKG and has already opened a much improved lounge at T3 compared with the previous susbstandard offering at T1.

I don't know why airlines such as QF don't move to T3: it may be a lack of available gates, or space for a lounge, or simply the cost of so doing, but T3 is clearly superior to T1.