Philippine Airlines: Victim of a Phoney War?

When Philippine Airlines sought to resume its service between Manila and London, it was granted an arrival slot of 2.30pm and three hours' use of a gate at Terminal 4. PAL calculated the flying time, 13 hours westbound, meaning a departure time of around 9am during the winter months and 8am when British Summer Time is in effect. The route PAL intended to use is almost identical to that KLM uses on its Manila - Amsterdam service:

It's a modified Great Circle that crosses the Chinese coast overhead Hong Kong and thence northwest until its track crosses the Russian border - a Great Circle being the shortest distance between two points on a sphere. A similar track is also flown by the Taiwanese airline Eva and all the airlines flying between Hong Kong and London/Amsterdam. It is also the track that Philippine Airlines flew for the first few weeks. But not any more.

At some point in December, Philippine Airlines was forced to reschedule its departure time from Manila and bring it forward by some three hours, to 6am, but its timetable continued to indicate that its flight would still arrive in London at around 2.30pm local time. I was a bit curious about this because I have been half-expecting to have to return to the UK for a week or two. Under the old timetable I could have taken the first Philippine Airlines flight in the morning from Davao to Manila and connected to the London flight. This is no longer possible. And here's why:

As you can see, PAL's service to London no longer flies across Chinese territory but takes the more southern route over Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, northern India, Pakistan, Iran, the Black Sea and central Europe. That route is over 1,000 nautical miles further which translates into an additional three hours' flying time. The return flight follows the same route but is two hours shorter - at 14 and a half hours. Airlines do not fly longer, more convoluted routes between two cities voluntarily as the extra fuel required together with the loss of an equivalent weight of freight means higher operating costs.

Towards the end of last year, China has been ramping-up the pressure on the Philippines in a bid to break its resolve over ownership of that part of the South China Sea that China claims as its own. The Chinese Navy has effective control over the Spratley Islands and Chinese fishing boats have complete freedom to fish that area. More recently, of course, China now requires foreign fishing fleets to request permission before they enter China's expanded territory (the so-called "Nine Dash Line") and I think it would be true to say that such permission would not be forthcoming to Philippine boats.

Just to make matters worse, the Philippine Government continues to refuse to issue a formal apology to the people of Hong Kong for the Manila bus hijack in which a number of Hong Kong Chinese citizens were killed in the botched PNP rescue attempt. This has resulted in the Hong Kong government now requiring Philippine diplomats, government officials and businessmen to apply for Visas before travelling and this may spread to bona-fides tourists as well before too long - a move heartily supported by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. From the Philippine perspective, however, its refusal to issue a formal apology is not one of saving face but more about protecting itself from the legal liability that an apology would imply.

China's tactic is simple: pick-off the opponents to its territorial claim one by one, starting with the Philippines which it views as the weakest of its opponents. For this reason, it refuses to negotiate the matter under the auspices of the United Nations - specifically UNCLOS, the UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea - or any other mediated grouping.

Back to Philippine Airlines. It does have routes in and out of China, including to Macau, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing and these routes are flown on a daily basis. But unlike the airline's London service, these flights do bring economic benefit to China. The only money China would make from PAL's London flight is the rather small amount from the air navigation charges. But by refusing the airline to transit China, China is imposing an economic cost on the airline with the aim that its owner, San Miguel, will pressure the Philippine Government to concede to China's demands.

San Miguel does have deep pockets but it is rather uncertain how long it can continue to absorb the extra costs of five hours' flying time per round trip. Absorb it it must if it is to be competitive against KLM, Eva, Cathay Pacific and the Middle Eastern carriers all of whom fly to Europe from Manila, directly or indirectly. The airline's inability to transit China may account for why PAL has not taken-up its services to Frankfurt and Paris as these too would have to take the southern route. Those services were expected to commence in the first quarter of this year.

President Aquino recently likened the current situation in Asia with the Europe of 1938 with China cast as Nazi Germany and the Philippines taking the Sudetenland's role. I've long thought the parallels between Europe in the late 1930s and Southeast Asia today were pretty plain to see. Just as Hitler invaded the Sudetenland and annexed Czechoslovakia in the process, China will "invade" the Philippines and then pick on another nation, possibly Vietnam, in the same way that Germany picked-on Poland. We are in a period of phoney war and whether hostilities break out remains to be seen.

Faced against China, the Philippines is in a no-win situation. China has historic claims over Luzon, parts of the Visayas including Cebu and part of Mindanao (including Palawan). These arise from the Datus of those aforementioned islands professing fealty to the Chinese Emperor in order to trade with China. China views those who profess(ed) fealty as being client states. I suggest that China intends to advance those claims because of the potential mineral wealth of those islands. To keep its industries going, particularly its electronic manufacturers, China needs the rare earth elements that is to be found underground in Sultan Kudurat, Cotobato and Luzon as well as the oil under the islands and in the seas between them. It also needs the fish from Philippine waters to feed is growing population.

All this crazy politics.

Do KLM still have the stopover in Taipei, I seem to remember that the stopover added 2 - 3 hours to the journey, all because of the punitive taxes imposed by the PI government.

Interestingly I recall that the KLM flight is operated by KLM Asia, which I believe is a subsidiary set up to avoid offending the Chinese, this recent board post on a Pilots forum sums the situation up as I understand:

Link to post on Pilots forum

So if KLM have to set up an Asian subsidiary due to bad politics with China, why are they allowed to fly to Taiwan over China, and why does Philippine Airlines not set up a Philippine Airlines Asia subsidiary?

Yes, KLM does still have 90 minute stopovers in Tapei in both directions but the principal reason for its move to an indirect flight to Europe - the iniquitous Common Carrier Tax - was abolished a few months later.

As far as I know, KLM's service continues to be serviced by KLM (rather than KLM Asia) although I believe its Schipol - Taipei - Schipol flights are operated by KLM Asia.

Philippine Airlines is unlikely to establish a Taiwanese subsidiary in the same way as KLM, Qantas and others since both countries belong to the same trade "clubs".

My gut feeling is that PAL will continue to soldier-on with its re-routed London service because to do otherwise would be unthinkable. Its major competitor, Cebu Pacific, has now taken delivery of two of its extended-range A330s which it's currently operating to the Gulf States. As soon as the European regulators give it the green light, it will continue one or more of those services on to Europe and very likely to Stansted. The overall flight time will not be much different to PAL's.

Cebu Pacific long haul would be hell.

Woken in the middle of the night for a quiz, and everybody holding a shoe in the air in the hope of winning a ****ty Cebu Pacific travel bag.

Years ago that might have been true. I can remember being on the bridge of a P&O freighter approaching the country's main port, Kiaoshung which is protected by high cliffs on both seaward sides of the channel. Built-in to those cliffs were/are huge guns, the type that fire dustbin-sized shells ("Guns of Navaronne") and I believe there were/are similar emplacements all around the coast. It was and remains an island fortress and all Taiwanese have to do a period of military service. Things have changed a little but not much since those days. Most notably, Taiwan has become a very wealthy nation largely thanks to its highly successful electronics industries and now companies such as Asus sub-contract their manufacture to mainland companies.

Well quite. Invasion isn't a strategy that would work particularly well with Taiwan and not just because the PLA isn't battle-tested; the loss of life would be horrific. The Philippines, on the other hand, would be 'a walk in the park' by comparison and if you invade, you don't pay for what you take.

That depends on whether the US President has a backbone and he'll probably want to take account of public opinion. Given that the US has been at war with someone for the entire century to date, would the US electorate countenance a major operation against another super-power? I have my doubts.

I agree. I don't think they will stand idle either.

Also, it has been said that the USA would have a lot to lose if they entered such a war and that the Chinese hold the cards as the USA are in there debt but I think you are right, the USA would be better off if it defaulted on its Chinese debt.

Indeed. And a point no doubt not lost on the USA administration.

Having thought about this some more, I think Aquino was on the right track but compared the Philippines with the wrong country. In my amended view, Tibet was China's Sudetenland, the large area of the South China Sea that China claims as its own represents Poland and the Philippines would be France.

I would certainly like to think that is true. However I suspect that America can not afford to act alone either militarily, economically or diplomatically; she would need to seek a 'coalition of the willing'.

The Philippines needs to build a Philippines Lobby in the States like the Israel Lobby and the Taiwan Lobby

I don't think that's actually so; remember when Japan "could buy theUSA" in the late 80's?

I'm not so sure about that, Dom, but I do agree that China could make things very difficult indeed for the US economy. The US can not and, I suggest, will not take-on China alone. Remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US was unable to get a vote through the UN Security Council because both Russia and China vetoed military action but the US did win the vote in the General Assembly which gave it the moral and legal right to lead the military task force.

The problem is that China now effectively controls the South China Seas and has been able to do so completely unopposed. That puts China in a very strong position.

Depends what you mean by "control".

How would that work?

I don't think that China controls the Taiwan Strait, let alone the South China Sea. Having a few ships is one thing; blockading Taiwan, let alone Korea and Japan, is quite another matter.

Exactly