Airlines In The Philippines II

[crash&burn]

Two are there but they may both have to go to Lake Charles for HMV. I think the plan is to expand YVR operations with the loosening of Canadian visa requirements.

[Arianespace]

That was planned 3 years ago. I think it was the offshoot of SEA denial. Anyway, lots of plans, not enough metal to fly. So I hoped they find 77ws with reasonable lease rates to bridge the metal gap. I love to see them land in SEA. A route they once served more than 25 years ago on MDs.

[meronbopis]

You mean fly back to Newark?  Hit United on its own turf?

Make sense though that will erode the Shuttle services from NJ to JFK.  Then again, im not going to complain.

[Arianespace]

Interesting proposition. But PAL left EWR for JFK, and has now flown direct. So it is very much unlikely they hit that road once again. There are two airports in the US left for them to fly should they try to duplicate its route network at the height of its glory days in 1997. SEA and ORD. They would probably be in these routes five years from now.

[JNC03]

Possible when new aircraft arrived in their fleet

ORD is a possible candidate for new routes of PAL in US due to the demand, I know someone traveling there every year

Europe is now the big question where will they mount flights aside from LHR

[Evodesire]

It looks like Capt Stan is keen with Europe, question is when but possibly when those A35Ks arrive. I hope they bring back London. I think there are also a large amount of Filipinos who shuttle between Manila and Italy. Hope they consider Rome and Milan.

[Arianespace]

The EU question and the B789 makes perfect sense, not necessarily the sardine can 35ks.

[seven13]

Will the A35K in 370 seats able to make JFK and YYZ without payload restriction especially on the westbound sector?

[JNC03]

Sometimes the demand is not good in europe so the 787 is a good candidate for european flights

KLM is utilizing 787s to Manila now

Bamboo Airways are letting go some of their 787s now

[JNC03]

[Arianespace]

seven13 wrote

Will the A35K in 370 seats able to make JFK and YYZ without payload restriction especially on the westbound sector?

Apparently, the project sunrise (HGW) WV011 variant A35k with a 20,000-liter center fuel tank to be introduce in 2025 by Qantas can. The Airbus standard for the 10 row cabin is 372 seats. After some useful long-haul tests and measurements from Toulouse to Sydney on test aircraft MSN059, Airbus found impressive performances in 2021 paving PAL to reach MNL from JFK with ease. A 50t balikbayan boxes fits.



What is more interesting is Airbus offer to PAL to add 10 row cabin of the A359 for US west coast operations instead of the 9 abreast A339, taking it away from the B789, should its fleet planners be persuaded. After all they already have it on the 35k.

And now, about how this ten rows on the A359 would look like in reality, the armrest just got thinner to begin with. Wait till you start eating your meal and see what I mean.

[JNC03]

Airbus offered to reconfigure or order new A359s?

featuring the new production standard that makes 10 abreast economy class possible without compromising comfort. But when Airbus offered to just reconfigure it, just look at some A350-900 of France based LCCs. Their A350-900s don't feature the new production standard.

[Arianespace]

New production 359s with 369 pax, as 333 replacement. We've been discussing before PAL preference to the B789s as compared 339s and Airbus offer of the 359s. While 789s is 3-3-3, 359s is 3-4-3. The only question is whether it could come home from LAX to MNL with 369 pax and 42t payload which i seriously doubt.

According to my source, while Stan stated the 35k to be 10 abreast, the airline has not yet "finalized the configuration" as they are still going to be "extensively evaluated" in the coming months if this is what the airline directions would be. So there is still chance for it to become 3-3-3 after all. Otherwise, if these sardine can configuration is the way to the future, then so does the 333 replacement. Which is horrifying experience for back seaters in long haul flights, from 18 inches to 16 inches seats.

Initial signs however has pointed to this direction, ie 320, 333 and 359 densifications. But my source pointed they are rightsizing the fleet to the longest route they are serving, which is a fair point.

[seven13]

Arianespace wrote

New production 359s with 369 pax, as 333 replacement. We've been discussing before PAL preference to the B789s as compared 339s and Airbus offer of the 359s. While 789s is 3-3-3, 359s is 3-4-3. The only question is whether it could come home from LAX to MNL with 369 pax and 42t payload which i seriously doubt.

According to my source, while Stan stated the 35k to be 10 abreast, the airline has not yet "finalized the configuration" as they are still going to be "extensively evaluated" in the coming months if this is what the airline directions would be. So there is still chance for it to become 3-3-3 after all. Otherwise, if these sardine can configuration is the way to the future, then so does the 333 replacement. Which is horrifying experience for back seaters in long haul flights, from 18 inches to 16 inches seats.

Initial signs however has pointed to this direction, ie 320, 333 and 359 densifications. But my source pointed they are rightsizing the fleet to the longest route they are serving, which is a fair point.

That’s a welcome consideration from Cap Stan that they are seriously still considering 3-3-3 arrangement for the 35K. The 3-3-3 in for the A330 is just too tight and too uncomfortable for longhaul flights.

[Evodesire]

Amidst the denser A359 being pushed for PAL, or perhaps if there are still chances that they get back their A359s from LH), is PAL still highly considering the 787-9s? I always had this impression that you still need a Boeing if you want to keep flying to the US mainland and I doubt that PAL will still go towards the 777-9X direction.

[crash&burn]

Revenue Mgmt and Network Planning will not be thrilled with this. Replacing the B777s with 370 pax with something less than the 380 as advertised for the 35K is far from desirable.

[Arianespace]

Actually, you can still have 380 passengers with 9 abreast Y seating on the 35k. The legroom is however much smaller at 31 than 34. So it is still good as advertised. Its just a matter of configuring it.

[Evodesire]

I hope PAL's A35K BCL seats will be something similar, something good enough to also compete with QR's Qsuite.

Looks like CX will be launching theirs by next year.

https://simpleflying.com/cathay-pacific-business-class-boeing-777-300er/ 

[Arianespace]

I guess PAL is already paying the price for trading payload with range. Not that it always happen all the time but with a congested airport it often does happen. That is another costly unintended refueling tech stop which should have been avoided had the 359 been less denser. This is what actually makes MNL an expensive airport compared to CRK.

[Evodesire]

But haven't they been flying A359s without refueling stops at 295 pax? Did they reconfigure C3508 with 313 pax seats already?