Airlines In The Philippines II

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
421 messages Options
1 ... 1516171819202122
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Arianespace
Administrator
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) sustained its profitability in the first quarter of 2022, registering an operating income of $33.8 million (P1.7 billion) and net comprehensive income of $22.6 million (P1.2 billion). The last time they have consecutive revenues was in 2016.

PAL has now achieved positive income results for a full six-month period, showing an operating income of US$ 59 M and net income of US$ 42 M in the 4th quarter of 2021, with an EBITDA of US$ 145 M.

According to investment agreement with LT Group, Revenues should be return to investor unless they opt to convert it to equity. At the rate things are going US$500 M should be in the bank in 2 years time. Nice move!
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

XWB_flyer
Former Lovebus (Ex-3507) is in a special cleantechflyer livery
Admitted its a bit bare I wonder if she will get the full LH livery?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdX9gG2MUE-/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Meanwhile 3504 is at MUH awaiting to be painted in LH livery

https://www.instagram.com/p/CdcqpkoP1CG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Arianespace
Administrator
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

XWB_flyer
This post was updated on .
Yes 3503, 3506, 3504 and 3507 are the frames LH lease PAL doesn't need them for now meanwhile LH is desperate for long-haul aircraft even resorting to reactivating there older A340-600 and B747-400. But surprisingly not the A380-800 yet unles demand pick-up again or the B777-9 gets delayed again


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A330 for LAX

AnonBoy
So I just learned that PR is operating an A330 as PR112/113 on May 18-20 due to issues with B777 availability. Anyone has more info on this? Are they running out of available B777s to service the current number of flights? Heard the routing will be MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-MNL.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Arianespace
Administrator
Not the first time. Not a big deal either. I've seen them done this substitution with A333 twice. The last one was flown last year.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

XWB_flyer
In reply to this post by AnonBoy
Intresting I wonder if PAL is pushing there remaining B77W a too hard during the lockdown with short-haul flying? Also how many passenger can the A330-300 240T MTOW carry if crossing the Pacific non-stop? If filled to capacity like 363 then it will require stop at HNL and possibly GUM if there are headwinds.

With Airbus pitching the A330-900neo 251T MTOW to PAL I'm curious about its potential if it can cross the US West Coast or atless Vancouver?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Arianespace
Administrator
It can cross pacific and back to as far as YVR and SEA with 296 pax with 30t payload.

The range graph is here

A339 range
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200615/f0edd90b6af31da9e0429bbd7a8b4cbf.jpg
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Eurest
In reply to this post by XWB_flyer
The 251T A339 can indeed fly MNL-LAX/SFO/YVR, and more importantly LAX-MNL but will be load restricted when the flight duration takes longer than 14.5hrs (A339 similar range to the base 744 less 35NM)
But there's strong hubbub that a further 1-2 MTOW increase is coming soon for the legacy carrier sweet spot of 7400nm range
Though MNL-LAX is very close to EWR/JFK-HKG, w/c is basically 7010nmi (15:30 to 15:50) reserve requirements and all.
Both CO and UA would always restrict them when they used 772ERs (7010nmi) during winter ops but not with the B744s (7200+)
A 260pax 251T A339 could do LAX-MNL unrestricted year round, but a 253T A339 might be configurable to its 300pax bi-class limit & closer to the old 296 pax PR A359.
We haven't really seen much A339 sales despite the Oct2020 251T cert, so after the recent 251T A338, so a further A339 MTOW increase may finally make it compelling for PR
8 abreast Y would automatically make PR's transpacific Y product basically premium economy

The reason I mentioned the old SMC fleeting of the Boeing 748 and 788 are the rumours that the planned longhaul fleet size for PR is no longer 10 A359 size &10 779 size but 10-12 midsize longhaul (788 size) and 4-6 large longhaul (748 size)
Supposed reasoning is flexibility with frequency for the bulk of longhaul flights
Minimum 14x LAX, 10x SFO weekly to maximize profitable routes
Large AC for JFK/YYZ makes for better economics as cargo compensates the high fuel costs of a ultra long-haul flight when Y volume can't. Imagine the $$$ of Bluefin Tuna flying to those posh NYC restos

The A339 is in lead position for the 10-12 order as Airbus is HEAVILY discounting it, and its basically the A359 without the range (that PR doesn't really need), has plenty of delivery slots, and will be fairly easy to integrate because of commonality with A359 & A333
Quite a few lessors also have unplaced incoming frames
The only holdup is final configuration, PR wants more than 260pax in at least 28-32 J, Y+ & Y config
Dreamliners are in delivery limbo, and will need fleet integration training across the board like ground handling for the add'l voltage requirements for the starter, etc
Plus the ER program is being engineering audited, well, ALL Boeing programs basically are. They seem to shedding their money matters McDonnell-Douglas ways and going back to the Engineering driven Boeing way

The A35K is in 2nd to the 779 for the 4-6 order because of delivery slots & pricing, and PR doesn't want to lose the Boeing leverage for pricing for future fleet requirements. Future expansion in US with Boeing help also in mind.
I believe an A35K order would go like 1 airframe yearly from late 2026 onwards  while Boeing can offer 2 a year 1 month a part much sooner. 4 in a span of 10 mos in 2 calendar years

I no longer hold the view that the likely PR longhaul AC are leased B77Ws or B779s, but most likely an A339 or B789
So PR basically falls in like with the rest of the legacy carriers with a 300seater as main workhorse, except its not an A359 but an A339
Going for the A339 would be quite a departure from the old ways as it isn't really keeping up with the joneses but making smart balance sheet decisions
A339+B779 or B789+A35K
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

XWB_flyer
It will be intresting how thing will play out right now recover seems to be the priority. But eventually PAL will need start growing again and means new aircraft orders likely after 2025. In the short-haul I wonder if PAL will resume delivery of A321neo in 2024 rather then the previous 2026 I could also for see a possible order either the A321LR and XLR for PAL South Asia and Ociana? Which can complement either the A330-900neo or combinationof the Boeing B787-9 and B787-10 as alternative
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Arianespace
Administrator
A339+B779 or B789+A35K
Perfect combination, or a mix in between?

I see this equation as problematic and would rather see it mixed.

Now the tiny bit, while the A339 can fly LAX, it cannot fly MNL without payload hit. A 260pax might not cut it, particularly in winter. The problem with PAL has always been its target market, the Filipino diaspora, as it has always been flying heavier westward than going east. Even the triple seven suffers same fate when Boeing said it can do year round without penalty. Because there will always be headwinds. And some are stronger than others.

While the graph is easy to figure out, once you consider strong headwinds going west, then you might want to add 1000nm more. That has been the Airbus dilemma, and the main reason why it is limited to points far north (YVR/SEA).

Now if you consider the "new PAL strategy" about carrying more payloads, (i.e. underbelly) fleet structure would not fit the mix (cargo business). The mix would be solve by another plane of the american variety, which happens to carry more payload westwards, but with a plus $40 million price tag. An airline operator would be operating 3 planes as compared to 4 EU plane if it were to elect the american variant. That is huge difference.

The question that then follows is can it sustain to load the underbelly to justify and recoup the $40 million price difference. We don't have answer to that question just yet. Finding justification to a more expensive plane is hard sell. With the new strategy, it might get traction but still hard sell.



While the past PAL administration got a fix of that dilemma by getting its bigger sister, the A359, with an extra $50 million price difference than the A339, it can go farther to the east coast of continental US, even if it would end up flying 2 frames only than 3 A339s for the same amount of money poured in. Revenue wise, I would put my money on the latter. Hands down.

And we are only talking about SFO/LAX as destination. There is still another consideration into the mix, the US East coast. Which the US variant showed sufficiently inferior. Proving the A359 plane to be the most efficient choice.

But why not offer a different idea. Why not take a pair of A33Fs to basically serve that purpose without breaking the bank? Yes, they have thought of that too. Which makes the speculation more interesting.

Which brings us to the fabled 2 ton increase of the A339. Fabled because its not yet confirmed. A 2 ton increase would certainly increase the payload matching that of the american product. That would basically cover the free baggage allowance of 100 passengers. It would become a game changer should it come true.

According to JJB in 2018, he would take 5 of these birds to do North America rotations. Current management is on record that they are reconsidering this fleet plan because of their new found cargo business.

Fun fact, PAL flies one of longest A333 service to HNL at 4808nm than most of the A339 route. At the latest count, only four other route bested it. Eurowings Punta Cana and Las Vegas routes, all from FRA, and those going to Mauritius, which is also served by a 339 and currently its longest route, and PVG-LHR, a truly 12 hour flight. They all have 5700nm in range.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

XWB_flyer
I'm curious with PAL becoming focus on cargo beside passenger planes what role will the A350-900 play will they go for the larger A350-1000 and Wfu the A359 in favor for the larger A351 similar situation to the A340-200 and A340-300. Or acquire the Dreamliner to replace the A330-300 whule keeping the A359 and acquring either the A350-1000 or the Boeing 777-9 when its capability become clear. Another would be the have all wide-body be Boeing while keeping the Airbus for narrow-body.

So here are my possible scenarios for PAL wide-body fleet:

A339 > A359 > A351
A339 > A359 > B779
A359 > B789 > B781 > A351
B789 > B781 > B779
B788 > B789 > B781 > B779
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Eurest
The A350 & A330 do have a CTR so keeping the 2 A359s would be not much of a problem.
Though the likely scenario is for them to leave the fleet as they are in high demand & can be easily placed elsewhere.
Airbus could offer to buy them back to offset the acquisition of the A339, presenting sale&leaseback opportunities

As for the A339's range for MNL-LAX
TPAC ULH often gets restricted because of trip economics esp past 15hr flight times
It's not fiscally responsible to fly a full plane on certain scenarios
The more weight (Y pax and their 2x23kg bags), the more fuel you carry; w/c in turn adds weight requiring even more fuel.
So instead of a 9M Php fuel bill, you go for a 7M Php fuel bill for the flight but say 20 less pax&bags that pay 75k Php ea
You're weight restricted not because the plane can't carry it, but your greatly decreasing fuel cost by carrying fewer low yield Y pax so the bean counters are happy.
A 287 pax 251T A330-900 would be able to do 7000nm, but considering Airbus configured for PR a 278T 296 pax A359 for JFK/YYZ (Taiwan carriers got a 311ish 276T), we might see Airbus offer closer to the 260 pax lower limit of the A339

The A339+B779 combo would be similar to the A343+B744 combo that got PR thru the CAT II days.
On the other hand B789+A35k would be a more trip cost efficient version of the A359+B77W combo, as I imagine PAL would config their B789 similar to say KLM's with 30J, 48Y+ and 216Y (294pax)

PR would not need A333 replacements, and would just use the smaller widebody esp. to balance cycles and flight hours.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

XWB_flyer
Eurest wrote
The A350 & A330 do have a CTR so keeping the 2 A359s would be not much of a problem.
Though the likely scenario is for them to leave the fleet as they are in high demand & can be easily placed elsewhere.
Airbus could offer to buy them back to offset the acquisition of the A339, presenting sale&leaseback opportunities.
Ok I can now understand your logic for PAL to get rid of there remaining two A359 (3501 & 3508) for sales&leaseback opportunities. Weither it will happen only time will tell also note some lessor also bought stakes of PAL as part of restructuring if they decided to keep it long-term they could influence fleet renewal and aircraft utilisations.

I personally think it would be a good idea for PAL to order the A339 as a replacement for the A333. But probably only after 2025-onwards with delivery either 2028-2030 timeframe I also agree with Arianespace that maybe PAL should consider acquiring a dedicated frieghter I think they should start with narrow-body first either the A320 or A321 first then move towards larger types like the A332F or A333P2F.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Arianespace
Administrator
In reply to this post by Eurest
Eurest wrote
A 287 pax 251T A330-900 would be able to do 7000nm, but considering Airbus configured for PR a 278T 296 pax A359 for JFK/YYZ (Taiwan carriers got a 311ish 276T), we might see Airbus offer closer to the 260 pax lower limit of the A339
haven't you heard? PAL is increasing seats to its A359 to 313 from 296, that is adding two more row seats.
https://business.inquirer.net/341238/pal-reduces-business-seats-ditches-premium-economy

The way I see it, the A359 is there to stay. It was difficult lately due to suspension of Russian overflights. LHR, JFK, YYZ, and soon ORD depends on Siberian airspace to stay competitive. When this sector reopens, it will be PAL workhorse.

Its very difficult to match A359 performance to the B789 which is trailing far behind. Gap is significant. Even the Boeing CEO acknowledges superiority of the A359 that they are going back to the drawing board looking to find the ER variant. It however is superior when pared to A339 in its current form. And when A339 does have its fabled MTOW increase, that superiority will almost be null.


In my humble opinion, future fleet planning is going this way,

A333-300 > A330-900 (two configuration)  medium haul -360 (middle east, aspac)
                                                        long haul -296 (YVR,SEA,HNL,AKL,TLV,FCO)

A340-300 > A350-900 (existing)  ultra long haul -313 (LHR,JFK,ORD,YYZ,FRA,CDG)


B777-300ER > A350-1000

By the way, PR early flight to CAN with A333 is pax empty. So you see they are doing this slowly.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

AnonBoy
PR has suspended the reconfiguration of the A350s and opted to retain the original config. Maybe they see value in the PECY product again? Or they are not willing to spend for the 2 frames left.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Arianespace
Administrator
Suspension is different from Cessation. With the schedule they have for Summer, they are scrambling their long haulers like crazy. The triple seven availability would be an example of how inadequate their long haul fleet is at the moment.

While, this triple seven sits in Clark together with the A330.



That is how prudent they are with their finances. But this strategy has limits.  Wait when one of it longhauler gets unscheduled maintenance and their schedule will go haywire. Results would be catastrophic for Skytrax.

Well, lets see.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

Arianespace
Administrator
Then this comes to mind.

Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

XWB_flyer
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Arianespace
https://business.inquirer.net/341238/pal-reduces-business-seats-ditches-premium-economy

When carefully reading the article the Chief Finnacial Officer of PAL Nilo Thaddeus Rodriguez didn't say specifically say that PAL will get rid of Premium Economy rather the author assumed its out of the door as there keeping the same seat pitch 33" for Y while J remains unchanged. Regardless if PAL will keep PE or not with there busy summer scheduled this year it will not give them time to refurbished there 2 A350-900 in the short term with only half of there long-haul aircraft active and the rest are in storaged to balance finances.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A330 for LAX

XWB_flyer
Looking at FR24 it seem PAL  only has 9 active Long-haul aircraft in service 2 A350-900 (3501 & 3508) 7 B777-300ER ( 7772, 7773, 7776, 7777, 7778, 7779 and 7782). Meanwhile the remaining 77W not mentioned 7774, 7775 and 7781 are either in storaged or under maintenance.
1 ... 1516171819202122