Home » Philippine Airlines
You are browsing entries tagged with “Philippine Airlines”
After six years of waiting, the Philippines was upgraded to Category-1 status by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), meaning Philippine carriers may now expand their operations in the United States and, eventually, boost tourism and businesses between the two countries. The announcement, first made on Twitter by US Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg, came as a surprise as it had been expected to be made by US President Barack Obama during his state visit later this month.
By Conrado de Quiros
I came into it from the other side of the world. I was one of those who flew with Philippine Airlines on its inaugural flight to Europe, which happened to be the United Kingdom. Or its inaugural flight after a hiatus of a decade and a half. A wondrous occasion, and something of tremendous value to Filipinos, particularly the OFWs, easing as it does their transition to new, and often alien, if not alienating, cultures. But that’s another story, best left for another day.
By Conrado de Quiros
Shortly after I wrote about the PAL flight attendants’ shock and awe at the Court of Appeals’ decision to roll back their retirement ages to 60 for men and 55 for women, I remembered a movie I had seen a couple of years ago that dwelled on this theme. That movie was “Made in Dagenham.” [...]
By Conrado de Quiros
Who says the courts are deaf to entreaties? They’re not. They’re just deaf to the entreaties of the aggrieved, not of those that make them so.
By Michael L. Tan
Right before New Year’s, a physician-friend sent me a long text about new procedures pertaining to sending and claiming air cargo, which make it an ordeal. Here’s an edited version of the text: “If you want to send a box of fruit from Manila to Davao using PAL cargo, you have to go to [...]
We in the Flight Attendants’ and Stewards’ Association of the Philippines (Fasap) join the nation in hailing the triumph of justice with the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona by the impeachment court.
THE DECISION of the Supreme Court to reject with finality the bid of President Aquino’s Cojuangco clan to get compensation for Hacienda Luisita based on 2006 prices, which would have allowed the clan to secure at least P5 billion, has cleared the way for a full implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) a [...]
YES, IT will soon be “more fun flying with PAL.” (“Turning PAL around,” Inquirer, 4/17/12) But that will only come when the US Federation Aviation Administration (FAA) lifts the restrictions imposed on PAL for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport’s loss of Category 1 status. Indeed a heavy punishment for the flag carrier, though it’s no [...]
May we write in reaction to the editorial titled “Turning PAL around.” (Inquirer, 4/17/12)
The colorful history of Philippine Airlines took another major turn just before the Lenten break. San Miguel Corp., led by the aggressive 58-year-old businessman Ramon Ang, bought a 40-percent stake in, and obtained management control of, the airline.
Don’t expect the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) case to be the last word on the matter. By upholding its October 2011 recall of its “final” decision (ordering Philippine Airlines to reinstate 1,400 Fasap members) made barely a month before, the high tribunal, voting 7-2, also ordered the reraffling of the case and sent it back to square one. It is as if nothing has happened between 1998 (when PAL laid off the flight attendants) and a dozen years later. If there’s a classic illustration of miscarriage of justice and inutility of our laws, this is it.
If attentive observers of the developments at the Senate impeachment court are appalled to discover that Chief Justice Renato Corona and his wife enjoyed VIP perks from Philippine Airlines while the company had a case pending at the Supreme Court, and are naturally eager to learn more, what are they to make of a ruling by the court rejecting the PAL executive presented by the prosecution to testify on the matter? Would they not be wondering why someone who can credibly be described as a competent witness would be deemed irrelevant to the case?