Air Canada’s route network to Asia keeps becoming more impressive, and the airline has just announced its latest destination.
In this post:
Air Canada adds Manila flights in April 2025
As of April 2, 2025, Air Canada will launch a new 4x weekly, year-round flight between Vancouver (YVR) and Manila (MNL). The route will operate with the following schedule:
AC17 Vancouver to Manila departing 1:55AM arriving 6:20AM (+1 day)
AC18 Manila to Vancouver departing 9:25AM arriving 6:20AM
The service will operate westbound on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Sundays, and eastbound on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. The 6,567-mile flight is blocked at 13hr25min westbound and 11hr35min eastbound.
Air Canada will use a Boeing 787-9 for this service, featuring 298 seats. This includes 30 business class seats, 21 premium economy seats, and 247 economy seats.
Here’s how Air Canada’s EVP of Revenue and Network Planning, Mark Galardo, describes the new route:
“We are thrilled to add Manila to our global network with new, year-round, non-stop service from Vancouver, Air Canada’s Pacific gateway hub. We continue to pursue our international network strategy of expanding to large, fast-growing markets that are presently unserved directly by Air Canada. The Philippines is an important market reflecting longstanding family ties between our two countries with growing business connections and tourism opportunities. With an extensive domestic and transborder network in Vancouver designed to connect seamlessly to our international flights, we are making travel between North America and the Philippines even more convenient for leisure and business travellers alike. It is with great excitement that we look forward to welcoming our customers onboard next spring.”
My take on Air Canada’s new flight to Manila
It’s really cool to see how Air Canada is continuing to expand into Asia. Among North American airlines, United has historically been in a league of its own when it comes to expanding deeper into Asia, as it’s an area where American and Delta are barely competing. Air Canada is really getting into United’s league, though.
In the past couple of years, we’ve seen Air Canada also add flights from Vancouver to Bangkok (BKK) and Singapore (SIN), so that’s some really cool expansion. Speaking of United, in late 2023 we saw the carrier add a route to Manila out of San Francisco (SFO), which was otherwise the only nonstop flight on a US carrier from the mainland to Manila.
Philippine Airlines also operates the Vancouver to Manila route, so the two carriers will be competing head-to-head. Obviously Air Canada has the advantage when it comes to connectivity within the Americas, while Philippine Airlines has the advantage when it comes to connectivity within Asia.
Air Canada shares that Manila is currently the largest market in Asia that’s not served directly by Air Canada. The Philippines isn’t the highest yielding market in the world, but I guess between high demand an fuel efficient aircraft, the economics for such a route can work nowadays.
Bottom line
Air Canada will be launching a new 4x weekly flight between Vancouver and Manila as of April 2025. This will be Air Canada’s third new route to Southeast Asia in the past couple of years, following new service to Bangkok and Singapore. I’m very impressed by how Air Canada’s long haul network is continuing to grow.
What do you make of Air Canada’s new Manila service?
First of all, this is great news and long overdue.
That being said, I always found that less-than-daily service feels half-hearted. Also, the westbound schedule is unattractive, with a middle-of-the night departure from YVR, then arriving MNL just in time to... try to check in to your hotel at 06:00hrs.
Still, a step in the right direction. Star Alliance really rules TransPacific.
MNL flights cater mostly to VFR traffic with a sprinkling of business traffic here and there. And with MNL being congested, it was probably the only slot time available similar to UAs from SFO.
once again,
Ben either proves his ignorance or he wants simply to stimulate conversation - truth be damned.
Delta is the 4th largest TPAC airline by ASMs and 3rd largest by number of flights and seats.
AC is the 6th or 5th largest by the same metrics.
It is also noteworthy that Korean is the 2nd largest TPAC airline and also has a JV with DL for nearly all of KE's TPAC flights.
...
once again,
Ben either proves his ignorance or he wants simply to stimulate conversation - truth be damned.
Delta is the 4th largest TPAC airline by ASMs and 3rd largest by number of flights and seats.
AC is the 6th or 5th largest by the same metrics.
It is also noteworthy that Korean is the 2nd largest TPAC airline and also has a JV with DL for nearly all of KE's TPAC flights.
OZ is 9th largest; combined with KE, the single Korean airline will by itself be 80% of the size of UA.
ANA, UA's JV partner is 7th largest and is just 75% of DAL's size.
JL is 8th largest while AA is 12th largest.
It is correct to say that AA is half the size of DL across the Pacific and JL is less than half the size of KE plus OZ.
PR is 11th, just above AA.
And all of this is based on current capacity which for DL and KE has been very slow in growing because of the merger approval which has been in process.
SO, no, Ben, Delta is higher on the pecking order of TPAC carriers that AA and JL and larger than both of the Japanese carriers - as well as Air Canada and Philippine.
I know you try desperately to stir the pot, but do try to be just a tad objective when the facts are pretty easy to find.
Baby Timmy got hurt
You use the guise of objectivity to skew the narrative in favor of Delta.
Yes, KE and DL are the 2nd and 4th by ASMs, except you don't mention who is #1, which is United, who incidentally has almost as many TPAC ASMs as KE and DL combined.
Relative ranking means nothing if you ignore the actual scale and level of difference across carriers.
There has been no doubt that UA is the largest across the Pacific.
I have said it multiple times.
And KE plus DL right now is just a little larger than UA alone. UA is that large.
UA is 1.8X as large as KE.
As I have repeatedly noted, DL is right at half UA's size across the Pacific in terms of ASMs.
The point is Ben's comment about AC relative to...
There has been no doubt that UA is the largest across the Pacific.
I have said it multiple times.
And KE plus DL right now is just a little larger than UA alone. UA is that large.
UA is 1.8X as large as KE.
As I have repeatedly noted, DL is right at half UA's size across the Pacific in terms of ASMs.
The point is Ben's comment about AC relative to AA and DL which is patently false.
And given your need to tout how large UA is, perhaps this would be a good time for you to explain to all of us how DL manages to make much more per ASM than UA - last year and this year DL was pretty close to 2X more profitable per ASM over the Pacific than UA.
I use the guise of facts. Why don't you be the first person to admit that UA's size doesn't translate into a profit advantage. And if you don't like the profit numbers for UA's Pacific region, tell us why UA on a system basis still manages to generate less profits despite flying more ASMs - and burning more fuel.
I'd love for you to explain the mystery of UA's lower profitability relative to DL's.
Ben isn't wrong though, Delta and AC have a gap of less than 8% in terms of ASMs, which will shrink even further with the MNL route.
AC serves far more unique routes than DL, which is actually the crux of his point. AC is the only carrier in the Americas to serve BKK, for example.
DL will be adding SLC-ICN on a DAILY basis so will be adding more ASMs than AC's MNL flight.
And the data for the current time period is that DL is larger - which is not at all what Ben said.
The difference between the 3rd through 6th ranked carriers is is not large.
There is a huge difference between UA and KE and then a decent but not insurmountable difference between KE and...
DL will be adding SLC-ICN on a DAILY basis so will be adding more ASMs than AC's MNL flight.
And the data for the current time period is that DL is larger - which is not at all what Ben said.
The difference between the 3rd through 6th ranked carriers is is not large.
There is a huge difference between UA and KE and then a decent but not insurmountable difference between KE and the next 4 carriers which includes DL.
And again, you like Ben, are fixated on the number of destinations as if that is indicative of size.
You post on here alot but you still can't comprehend that the reason why DL gets the revenue premium it gets is because it dominates the markets it serves - both domestically and internationally.
DL is the largest US and foreign carrier at HND and the largest US carrier - and probably largest foreign carrier at ICN.
UA is large - but there are clearly significant parts of its network that don't deliver and it would be nice - for the first time - if someone would be honest that there are some significant cracks in UA's Pacific network. I suspect it is related to NRT and the lack of local high value Tokyo traffic and also the fuel inefficiency of UA's TPAC fleet which includes 777-200ERs and -300ERs in addition to 787s. DL's entire TPAC fleet except for HNL-HND operates on new generation powered 339s and 359s.
And why the sudden fixation with AC? UA doesn't have a TPAC JV with them.
And they ARE smaller than DL across the Pacific.
No, the crux of the point is NOT that AC serves more destinations.
Read what Ben wrote.
Tim, you’re missing the point where Air Canada is larger to the Pacific than Delta in several metrics including destinations served.
But even disregarding Air Canada’s numerous advantages over Delta, United is still more profitable and larger than Delta to Asia.
Delta is a distant #5 in transpacific flights. Serving no flights from the Northeast to Asia and having nearly all of your Asia network in two destinations is clearly a weakness for Delta...
Tim, you’re missing the point where Air Canada is larger to the Pacific than Delta in several metrics including destinations served.
But even disregarding Air Canada’s numerous advantages over Delta, United is still more profitable and larger than Delta to Asia.
Delta is a distant #5 in transpacific flights. Serving no flights from the Northeast to Asia and having nearly all of your Asia network in two destinations is clearly a weakness for Delta that other carriers will continue to exploit.
The former #1 in size and profitability is watching United and Air Canada succeed where Delta has failed.
first, I appreciate that you try to use numbers and facts - the problem is they are all totally made up and don't agree with anything that is actually true or published.
second, DL is the 4th largest airline across the Pacific - two positions higher than AC. Size has nothing to do with where those flights originate. There are precisely 3 US carrier flights from NYC to E. Asia. And, once again, AC doesn't...
first, I appreciate that you try to use numbers and facts - the problem is they are all totally made up and don't agree with anything that is actually true or published.
second, DL is the 4th largest airline across the Pacific - two positions higher than AC. Size has nothing to do with where those flights originate. There are precisely 3 US carrier flights from NYC to E. Asia. And, once again, AC doesn't fly from the NE US to Asia and DL will return there with JFK-ICN and will also add service to India. You really don't want to see the day that DL will return to the market because they won't be using weight restricted 787s but 350-1000s that can carry 75-100 more passengers.
third, UA is not more profitable across the Pacific or to anywhere else in the world than DL. Feel free to tell us how the profits by region should be distributed if you don't like what the DOT reports (using data each of the airlines provide) but UA even on a system basis this year to date is earning just 80% of what DL does despite flying about 5% more ASMs. Of course, that number is all fake news to you.
you are free to jeer DL's restructuring in Asia which is still in process but the Pacific didn't make money consistently for NW, Japan opened HND to US flights again but wouldn't allow DL to move its hub to HND, DL is the largest foreign airline at HND as they were at NRT, DL began an extensive JV w/ KE which is already larger than any JV AA or UA has across the Pacific and will be getting larger with the OZ merger, and DL has a much newer and more fuel efficient fleet for the Pacific than United which will always handicap UA's profits and DL's fleet advantage will grow as the 35K is added. And it isn't just DL; Asian airlines as a whole operate fleets much more in line with what DL operates while UA operates their antiquated old Boeings.
DL planned to restart MNL from ICN as part of the JV but ditched that plan w/ covid. I don't know how they will serve MNL but if it is a strategically important market, DL will either serve it via ICN or reap the benefits via the JV.
Scott Kirby accurately noted that UA would hold onto all of its old aircraft during the pandemic and would quickly grow -which they did. UA has never gained the profit advantage and never will because of their fleet.
DL will continue to add service to markets along the Pacific rim as well as at ICN while Tokyo is a no-growth market from the US due to Japanese policies. UA and you are terrified that DL has, once again, figured out how to outsmart UA across the Pacific with service to cities that are strategically important. And DL will be able to serve those cities from both coasts, something UA cannot do with its 787s.
Just as in NYC, DL has figured out how to outstrategize UA and they are now doing the same thing across the Pacific.
Ben only needs to write about DL and UA or throw in a comment here and there to get you folks all wound up. Your ego is wrapped up in UA's size and are completely incapable of accepting reality so you make up your own " facts." We all get to have an opinion about subjective facts but we don't get to make up facts.
None of which changes that the only advantage that AC has is the number of cities served in Asia. None. DL is larger than AC to Asia and DL serves more of the eastern US to Asia than AC does from Eastern Canada.
There will be many more new route announcements across the Pacific for DL in the coming years than for any other N. American airline. Your arguments here will age very poorly.
Show me on the doll where Delta’s small Asia network hurt you.
Look, I want you to succeed. I understand your focus in on word count rather than data or facts which is why I’m constantly correcting your multiple false and inaccurate statements.
Air Canada IS larger than Delta in multiple metrics including but not limited to number destinations served to Asia and having the second largest NA gateway to Asia behind UA in SFO....
Show me on the doll where Delta’s small Asia network hurt you.
Look, I want you to succeed. I understand your focus in on word count rather than data or facts which is why I’m constantly correcting your multiple false and inaccurate statements.
Air Canada IS larger than Delta in multiple metrics including but not limited to number destinations served to Asia and having the second largest NA gateway to Asia behind UA in SFO. Delta has no flights to Asia from the Northeast unlike American or United from the Northeast and Air Canada from Eastern Canada. Also United is much larger and more profitable than Delta over the Pacific. 9 figure profits are greater than 8.
Delta is a relatively minor player in Asia which is why they’re #5 in flights, don’t serve South Asia, don’t serve Southeast Asia, don’t serve the Middle East, don’t serve Melbourne, don’t serve China outside of Shanghai, don’t serve Hong Kong, the list goes on and on.
The vast majority of Delta’s Asia network is pretty much two destinations. They can’t even make Japan work otherwise they wouldn’t have given up a Haneda slot to American, in addition to cutting Osaka and Nagoya. So that pretty much leaves Delta Asia network entirely reliant on a single destination.
Also the A359 are underperforming Asia routes, trading 31 economy for 0 additional premium seats is necessary since they were payload restricting on average that many seats to begin with. The 787s for AA, UA, AC, WS, AM, NH, JL, KE, AF, KL, LA, MU, etc. don’t have the same problem and have the benefit of being more fuel efficient.
Also if the A350s were so amazing LATAM would have kept them in their fleet and VS would have preserved its full order.
Your arguments tend to age poorly so maybe it’s time to walk away.
It is clear "marketing deficit" that you can't win the debate on facts so you resort to spreading lies. You are so hellbent on finding fault with Delta to uphold your own fragile ego about UA that you lie.
DL is simply a larger carrier across the Pacific than Air Canada. No matter how many times you say otherwise.
Yes, UA and AA's 787s do have weight restrictions in various places. The A350 is simply...
It is clear "marketing deficit" that you can't win the debate on facts so you resort to spreading lies. You are so hellbent on finding fault with Delta to uphold your own fragile ego about UA that you lie.
DL is simply a larger carrier across the Pacific than Air Canada. No matter how many times you say otherwise.
Yes, UA and AA's 787s do have weight restrictions in various places. The A350 is simply a larger and longer range aircraft.
Latam got rid of the A350s because it is a Boeing operator and gained the A350s through a merger. AA, DL and UA all have a single supplier for their widebodies which is rational. It is not unexpected that LA takes the same approach.
UA is less profitable not just across the Pacific but throughout their entire network. It isn't hard to see that and you only harm yourself by arguing against clearly verifiable facts.
Denial is not a River in Egypt. Your ego is wrapped up in DL’s mediocrity and are completely incapable of accepting reality so you make up your own " facts." We all get to have an opinion about subjective facts but we don't get to make up facts.
Air Canada is larger from Eastern Canada than Delta from the Eastern US, no matter how many times you say otherwise. None of this changes that Delta...
Denial is not a River in Egypt. Your ego is wrapped up in DL’s mediocrity and are completely incapable of accepting reality so you make up your own " facts." We all get to have an opinion about subjective facts but we don't get to make up facts.
Air Canada is larger from Eastern Canada than Delta from the Eastern US, no matter how many times you say otherwise. None of this changes that Delta has no flights from the Northeast to Asia or doesn’t serve the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Hong Kong, Japan outside Haneda, and China outside Shanghai.
The 787 is serving longer range missions to Asia for Air Canada, American, and United than any of the A350 routes to Asia for Delta including ATL-ICN.
Air France, KLM, and Virgin Atlantic all have dual suppliers for their wide bodies so it’s not unexpected that LATAM could easily take the same approach.
UA is more profitable not just across the Pacific but across other parts of the network like in Latin America. It isn't hard to see that and you only harm yourself by arguing against clearly verifiable facts.
I've asked about 10 times for you or someone to list the DAILY year round flights that AC operates from eastern Canada to E. Asia.
Not the Middle East or South Asia.
East. Asia.
Nobody has ever said that DL serves the Middle East right now on its own metal.
You can't accept facts so you make up lies.
Air Canada is NOT the largest airline across the Pacific to E. Asia or...
I've asked about 10 times for you or someone to list the DAILY year round flights that AC operates from eastern Canada to E. Asia.
Not the Middle East or South Asia.
East. Asia.
Nobody has ever said that DL serves the Middle East right now on its own metal.
You can't accept facts so you make up lies.
Air Canada is NOT the largest airline across the Pacific to E. Asia or the S. Pacific.
Air Canada DOES NOT operate a half dozen flights from EAST Asia to Eastern Canada while DL operates a half dozen daily flights from ATL and DTW alone to E. Asia.
The A350 regularly does the longest flights in the world and many of those including some of SQ's are not even operated on the newest and most capable A350s.
As hard as it is for you to admit, the A350 is a larger, more efficient and more capable aircraft.
UA has screwed around wiht its Airbus order for years and will pay the price as DL puts its 283 tonne A350-900s and 322 tonne A350-1000s in service.
I am certain you will argue and lie as long as you can but UA is already regretting both privately and publicly that they were loyal to Boeing too long.
They simply were more interested in making huge order announcements than they were in getting airplanes delivered on time.
Airbus has no space in its order book for large numbers of deliveries that aren't already booked for at least 5 years.
In 5 years, DL will have significantly closed the size gap with UA over the Pacific.
And AC is not in much better shape with long range aircraft either - which is precisely why they cannot and do not operate near as many flights from Eastern Canada to East Asia as DL does.
Again, you resort to lies since you don’t have the facts on your side as your obsession with Delta’s mediocrity has rendered you unable to be objective in any sense of the word.
I’ve asked you multiple times to list Delta’s flights from the Northeast to anywhere in Asia. Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, take your pick.
Air Canada operates more than a half dozen flights from Eastern Canada to Asia, something Delta...
Again, you resort to lies since you don’t have the facts on your side as your obsession with Delta’s mediocrity has rendered you unable to be objective in any sense of the word.
I’ve asked you multiple times to list Delta’s flights from the Northeast to anywhere in Asia. Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, take your pick.
Air Canada operates more than a half dozen flights from Eastern Canada to Asia, something Delta doesn’t from the Eastern US.
The 787 operates some of the world’s longest flights including to Asia. The longest 787 flights for Air Canada, American, and United are longer than any of Delta’s A350 flights to Asia.
I’m sure you will lie and argue for as long as you can but, the 787s for Air Canada, American, and United are more fuel efficient and burn less fuel per seat than Delta’s A350s.
If the 350 was so great than LATAM wouldn’t have removed the A350s from their fleet and Virgin Atlantic would have taken their full A350 orders.
In 5 years Delta has managed to fall behind United in profitability to the Pacific while already being behind in size. AC is in great shape which is why they serve more destinations to Asia than Delta in addition to being larger in the East and PNW/Western Canada.
The biggest loser in this route announcement is Delta who’s been on a perpetual decline in Asia since the merger.
You dodge and deflect because you can't answer the core question.
Delta serves NO routes from the US NE to Asia - south or east Asia.
THAT is not the question.
You and others have been asked REPEATEDLY to list the daily flights AC operates from Eastern Canada to E. Asia. Not S. Asia. Not the Middle East.
You need only look at the data from multiple airlines, not what AA, DL or...
You dodge and deflect because you can't answer the core question.
Delta serves NO routes from the US NE to Asia - south or east Asia.
THAT is not the question.
You and others have been asked REPEATEDLY to list the daily flights AC operates from Eastern Canada to E. Asia. Not S. Asia. Not the Middle East.
You need only look at the data from multiple airlines, not what AA, DL or UA operates.
The A350 is simply a larger and longer range aircraft than the 787-9.
Your childish temper tantrum is on full display.
DL announced a DAILY SLC-ICN flight.
AC announced YVR-MNL - less than daily.
UA announced LAX-PEK - less than daily.
Only in the midst of your confusion and belligerence could you be unable to see that DL has added MORE capacity than either UA or AC in those announcements.
UA has managed to turn around its Pacific profitability - it was unprofitable flying it for 3 years.
United was more concerned about size that it operated the world's largest TPAC system at a loss for 3 years.
They still have made less money than DL this year because of UA's stupid capacity dump across the Pacific last year.
btw, DL's first LAX-BNE flight has been completed.
Guess who isn't flying it this year? UA which did last year.
First, you need to calm down and stop acting like a child throwing tantrums simply because you’re being corrected on your lies.
“Delta serves NO routes from the US NE to Asia - south or east Asia.”
You should have just stopped there.
Air Canada serves Delhi, Mumbai, Dubai, Seoul, Haneda, and Narita from just Toronto, which is more destinations than all of Delta’s small Asia network.
None of that changes the fact...
First, you need to calm down and stop acting like a child throwing tantrums simply because you’re being corrected on your lies.
“Delta serves NO routes from the US NE to Asia - south or east Asia.”
You should have just stopped there.
Air Canada serves Delhi, Mumbai, Dubai, Seoul, Haneda, and Narita from just Toronto, which is more destinations than all of Delta’s small Asia network.
None of that changes the fact that she 787 is serving longer routes to Asia for American, United, and Air Canada than any of Delta’s routes to Asia. And a single daily addition to ICN means Delta remains the #5 transpacific airline in flights and still less profitable than its competitors in the Pacific.
Feel free to share the data that shows Delta made less than United in the Pacific in 2023, and an entire digit less in 2022 and Q2 2024.
Delta is the last of the US3 and Air Canada to serve BNE. So congratulations to DL on trailing the pack in the Pacific yet again. It’s amazing how an airline serving a country with a population of California is able to outmaneuver and outperform Delta internationally in so many areas.
You can cry all you want but your tears won’t change Delta being #5 in flights across the Pacific.
just the six routes that AC operates to East Asia.
that's all.
Mumbai, Delhi and Dubai aren't in East Asia.
but you do raise an interesting point.
How is that AC can fly from YYZ to BOM on a 787 but UA can't fly it from EWR?
Answer: AC makes a stop in FRA on the way back.
The 787 can't make the flight from the US to BOM while following Russia...
just the six routes that AC operates to East Asia.
that's all.
Mumbai, Delhi and Dubai aren't in East Asia.
but you do raise an interesting point.
How is that AC can fly from YYZ to BOM on a 787 but UA can't fly it from EWR?
Answer: AC makes a stop in FRA on the way back.
The 787 can't make the flight from the US to BOM while following Russia air space restrictions.
AC doesn't even fly the 787 to DEL from YYZ; it uses the 777-200LR - the same aircraft that burns as much fuel as the daily output of a refinery but which DL managed to use from ATL-BOM.
You will absolutely lose it when DL starts ATL-India on the A350 and still manages to steer clear of Russia air space.
Thank you for confirming that AC is not larger than DL to East Asia and the 787 can't make it to India any further than from NYC and is still payload restricted on the way back.
Yes, Tim. Air Canada serves more destinations in East Asia from Vancouver than Delta does from its entire network and more destinations in Asia than Toronto and Vancouver than Delta also does.
It’s not a very difficult concept to show Delta’s predominantly two-destination Asia network does not provide wide coverage to Asia. Delta is also #5 in flights across Asia and the only North American to not serve Asia from the Northeast.
How is it...
Yes, Tim. Air Canada serves more destinations in East Asia from Vancouver than Delta does from its entire network and more destinations in Asia than Toronto and Vancouver than Delta also does.
It’s not a very difficult concept to show Delta’s predominantly two-destination Asia network does not provide wide coverage to Asia. Delta is also #5 in flights across Asia and the only North American to not serve Asia from the Northeast.
How is it that American, Air Canada, and United can fly to India with 787s and 777s but not Delta with its A350?
Answer: Delta used its 777-200LR to serve BOM and shortly after spending hundreds of millions to retrofit, retired the aircraft. DL’s former aircraft are now flying between the India and US for Air India.
Thank you for pointing out Delta last served BOM from ATL in 2009 and hasn’t been able to maintain operations to India for a full year from any US gateway for a since then.
You will absolutely lose it once you find out Delta is the only major international carrier in North America to not serve between India and North America.
Thank you for confirming that AC serves more destinations than DL to East Asia and the 359 can't make BOM work for Delta without payload restricted on the way back.
But none of that really matters when Delta is neither more profitable nor larger than its competitors to Asia.
Hard to believe that it wasn't that long ago that one could fly DL/NW metal from SFO to MNL with a one-stop connection in Asia...
Like I've said before, AC has had a desire to serve MNL. It was served decades ago by now-defunct carrier Canadian. And the Filipino diaspora thought Canada helps with connections. (PR also codeshares with WS)
DL is expected to be back next year from LAX. And LH has also applied for slots.
With PR getting outdone by the competition with better products, why are they still set on 10-ab on their A35Ks? Unless they...
Like I've said before, AC has had a desire to serve MNL. It was served decades ago by now-defunct carrier Canadian. And the Filipino diaspora thought Canada helps with connections. (PR also codeshares with WS)
DL is expected to be back next year from LAX. And LH has also applied for slots.
With PR getting outdone by the competition with better products, why are they still set on 10-ab on their A35Ks? Unless they offer dirt cheap, rock-bottom prices? They don't really have a good reputation within the Filipino community; they are viewed as cheap and unreliable. It's just national pride at this point.
While there are some that prefer PR, how would ACs 787 compare to their upcoming 10-ab A35Ks? Unless they get themselves 787s? But one thing they offer better than the competition would be their 33" pitch. Much better than the likes of even SQ and CX, and comparable to the Japanese and Korean carriers. But their amenities and movie titles are pretty 'barebone' as they'll have to pay for the rights as well.
I would have to disagree that PR offers decent connections within Asia as there are better alternatives such as EVA and ANA within Star from YVR alone. And their respective airports are way better than MNL; MNL is known for O&D. Maybe that will eventually change with the new airport u/c.
It's just good to see new (and old) tails in MNL (again) nonetheless. Years ago, you had Swiss(air), BA and AZ (via HKG), LH (via CAN) why CAN though?!), SAS. And you have NZ interested as well. The only major SEAsian carrier left to return would be Garuda.
DL expected to be back? that's news to me.
So is it faster ex-ORD to go via SFO or YVR? Thanks.
I didn't realize there were so many diehard PAL fans here. I've never heard anything good about them and half of their aircraft is 2-2-2.
I'd much rather take Air Canada's route than PAL. Grab a high quality meal at the Air Canada Signature Suite in YVR, then sleep for the majority of the flight over in nice reverse herringbones.
Air Canada does really well because it holds so much of the Canadian market captive...
I didn't realize there were so many diehard PAL fans here. I've never heard anything good about them and half of their aircraft is 2-2-2.
I'd much rather take Air Canada's route than PAL. Grab a high quality meal at the Air Canada Signature Suite in YVR, then sleep for the majority of the flight over in nice reverse herringbones.
Air Canada does really well because it holds so much of the Canadian market captive and YVR is very well-positioned. They're able to offer competitive transcon products in high frequencies from the large cities in YUL/YYZ and funnel the entire Canadian population through YVR. It is impressive how strong of a TPAC hub YVR has become.
AC has the worst on-time rating of all N. American airlines.
It makes Spirit look like a Swiss watch.
I can't tell you how many friends have taken AC from the US to Asia or Europe because of low fares only to end up spending an unplanned day in Canada.
All of the best service in the sky doesn't matter if the airline can't you get where you are supposed to be with any kind of reliability.
This is an advantage for some of us. Aeroplan 50K here (won't quite make it to 75K this year), an easy swap for me after two years of Delta Silver Medallion. Less spend, fewer flights, much faster status jumps, and Star Alliance Gold is useful for my home market and destination market (Japan, ANA, and US, United respectively).
I think I'm about 50/50 for delayed flights, including multiple overnight stays in Canada. As someone who...
This is an advantage for some of us. Aeroplan 50K here (won't quite make it to 75K this year), an easy swap for me after two years of Delta Silver Medallion. Less spend, fewer flights, much faster status jumps, and Star Alliance Gold is useful for my home market and destination market (Japan, ANA, and US, United respectively).
I think I'm about 50/50 for delayed flights, including multiple overnight stays in Canada. As someone who travels for family, but not business, A LOT (and was fully remote in a previous position for five years), Air Canada's delays are something I bake in, because I never need to arrive exactly on time, just in a general 24 to 48 hour window. Even with my new position, which is back to office, the compensation package includes generous paid leave, we're talking two to three weeks every three to four months. And those trans-pac flights add up real quick routing through Canada.
The journey is part of the fun, and Air Canada is always like $3-4K for business/first round-trip. Recently used my Aeroplan points not even for airfare--but to tack on a fully paid side trip to Hawaii for three days and three nights.
It's a hell of a deal.... when you don't need to get to where you are supposed to be with any kind of reliability. By all means, please keep choosing other carriers, so I can keep extracting value from Air Canada.
First you don’t have friends. Second Air Canada has 80% of its flight run on time. Westjet is at 70%.
I don't have friends because I accurately note how poorly AC operates?
Even the post right above yours from an AC customer says their flights are late about 50% of the time and they regularly plan to get stuck in Canada.
AC is a low quality airline from an operational standpoint that siphons off passengers from the US market.
Some people accept that tradeoff while high revenue passengers will not.
You don’t have friends because of how poorly you operate.
Anecdotal evidence is different from the fact that Air Canada has an 80% OTP and WestJet has a 70% OTP.
PR economy is way better than AC economy on that route.
I'd STILL take a positioning flight to LAX or SFO and fly either PR nonstop or OZ, BR, or just about anybody else WITH a layover and be happy about it.
I just wonder what is actually gonna be like to fly an AC 787 on a flight of that length. Their 787s are one of the highest density long-haul 787 out there (with one of the tightest seat pitch, though not the highest capacity), so...
Substandard planes and unreliable on time performance.
This will be used to sucker in ex-USA traffic connecting from the US with cheap fares, and maybe elite-hungry elite loyalists who have no choice but to fly AC.
PR is much better, and nonstop from YYZ and YVR.
With Air Canada pathetic service and reliability, this is will be for people wanting Star Alliance miles.
PAL flys on its NEW A350 from Toronto nonstop as well and Vancouver
Exactly. Either low fares or AC loyalists.
No other way to sell this over PR.
While PR A350s aren't really new anymore (nor old), I'm sure that would be way more pleasant than AC B789.
Like you said, this should be a pretty good option for *A FFs, but as someone who don't prioritise the alliance firstly I'd look for a PR flight instead, if I ever fly YVR-MNL.
they only have two a350s and they are also flown to new york, so it will be based on luck. their b777 are showing their age. The soft product compensates though, but the lack of alliance is still a bummer.
Wow! This is great for Fil-Canadians and even maybe Fil-Ams and visitors esp with eta and twov.. will be interesting to see how it affects PAL considering they use their newest and nicest 777 for YVR somewhat exclusively
It's crazy that they operate the only nonstop service between the Americas and Thailand, considering the amount of volume between the two. I know the yields are generally low, but wow.