Airlines In The Philippines II

[XWB_flyer]

I guess it could mean either PAL will not be keeping there older B77W for long or plans to eventually refurbished them when finnace have improved to warrant that kind of investment.

On the other hand if PAL decided not to refurbished there B77W and instead invested in a dedicated fleet of freighter it could also mean there is no need for an aircraft the sized of the Triple seven and downsized there fleet by reducing the number of types from three to two types either A350/B787 or A339/A350. For dedicated freighter I'd push for the A330-200F rather then the larger A330-300P2F or recently launched A350-900F as I feel its the right-sized another possibility is Airbus will launched an A330-800F to compete with the B767-300ERF and replace the A330-200F?

[seven13]

Arianespace wrote

Eurest wrote

Used to be B777 cabin and cargo then switched to A330 on pure cargo hold only. It’s also doing SZX once a week with cabin and some XMN as well with cabin.

Did they remove aft seats and use a net as divider or placed cargo in specific uniform boxes, place them on the seats and overhead bins and then cover the seats in a thick plastic/tarpaulin.

It was interesting to see how each airline refitted to cargo, and then evolved to make it more efficient.

The picture above was taken sometime between April and May 2020, when purely cargo flights using passenger aircrafts were first flown. Eventually, a more detailed guideline was issued coming from engineering and manufacturer as to how cargos should be loaded inside the passenger cabin. For the 878X series, PECY section is last to be loaded with cargos. It serves as a back up area just in case the ECY section and all OHBs aren’t enough. No seats were removed; nets were used to all throughout the passenger cabin to secure the cargo boxes.

For regional cargo runs, cabin is staffed, initially, with 2 cabin crews and eventually became four. For medium haul to ultra longhaul cargo runs, cabin was staffed with four cabin crews. I think 5J only staffed their cargo flights with 1 crew. Not sure where I read/saw that before. CX also staffed their cargo runs somewhere between 2-4 crews, if I’m not mistaken.

[Eurest]

Looks like a hybrid of the KLM and CX solution but similar to EK's A380 cargo

CX removed seats and went for nets and KLM used the seats but eventually had a special reinforced cover over the seats but lifting the midseats armrests

If PR would eventually grow their freight forwarding business, the cost effective choice would be going to IAI for ERSF conversions at 30M a pop for their B77Ws, unless lessors can offer cheap ex-Russian 748Fs or unplaced 77Fs

I believe American businessmen want a Free Trade Agreement (CNBC Intl TV) with the PH, might PR get benefits like US EX-IM loans to help push the FTA?

Also, any ATA implications over the KE & OZ merger?
I don't think the PH minds only 1 carrier serving MNL for a country, like QF for Australia
The EU is taking away slots, would PR be ok for KeOz owning a bigger slice of the allotments.
Might they insist on a mainline carrier getting as much as the other country's mainline, and then PH LCC= Kor LCC allotment?

UA doesn't like the merger as the KEOZ is seen to leave StarAlliance for KE's SkyTeam making ASEAN harder for UA
UAL doesn't really like carriers teaming up like PR/AA
Meanwhile, everyone is watching if AA may be prodded to strengthen its ASEAN region presence with an investment. Esp with the PH Public Service Act amendment
Everyone's interest was piqued at how fast Starlink got its certification
Will ask if there are feasibility studies being commissioned like Abu Dhabi's for the PH

[Arianespace]

Its a pitiful sight to look at PAL with inadequate longhaul. It so happened that PR127(3501) got some maintenance issues at JFk yesterday. So its back to A330 again for LAX.

And look again how the situation is dire, they are cannibalizing the plane intended to fly the middle east (66) to fly HNL. Told you, the rotation is tight.

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

I believe American businessmen want a Free Trade Agreement (CNBC Intl TV) with the PH, might PR get benefits like US EX-IM loans to help push the FTA?

PAL 7777,7776,7775, and 7774 are all Exim bank loans.

Also, any ATA implications over the KE & OZ merger?
I don't think the PH minds only 1 carrier serving MNL for a country, like QF for Australia
The EU is taking away slots, would PR be ok for KeOz owning a bigger slice of the allotments.
Might they insist on a mainline carrier getting as much as the other country's mainline, and then PH LCC= Kor LCC allotment?/

Nope. ASA with South Korea is by seat allocations. Limited allocations for Manila and unlimited to other parts of the Philippines.

UA doesn't like the merger as the KEOZ is seen to leave StarAlliance for KE's SkyTeam making ASEAN harder for UA UAL doesn't really like carriers teaming up like PR/AA

Because it acted like an exceptional carrier?

Meanwhile, everyone is watching if AA may be prodded to strengthen its ASEAN region presence with an investment. Esp with the PH Public Service Act amendment. Everyone's interest was piqued at how fast Starlink got its certification Will ask if there are feasibility studies being commissioned like Abu Dhabi's for the PH

Good you asked. Anything is possible. For now though, it is but a family corporation, all 76% of it. Public ownership is limited to 14% while ANA got 9.5%, just enough to have a board seat.

[Arianespace]

Truth to tell, PR long haul schedules has really gone bonkers. The unscheduled maintenance and downtime has finally caught up and slammed the faces of new management team. Now with plenty of passenger complaints along the way. One of them a friend of mine who can't rebook his connecting flight in the US. A friend of his on the way to HNL complained on downgraded services for same amount of money.

Complicating service is the cargo operations which they are contractually bound to meet. Certainly, you can use this argument once about delayed flights, not when they no longer can't be met because there is no plane to fly, which pretty much is what is actually happening now. Had there been no cargo, there would be plane. But cargo is revenue, passengers can wait. I think they got it all wrong here. I understood it the other way around.

I'm pretty sure the Skytrak rating, which JJB tried to maintain and keep, will go down from here. Either management will make up their mind soon or suffer the rating downgrade. It may not matter to most passengers, but certainly it matters to business class people who happens to pay more.

To keep you posted, Flight to SFO left today instead of last night. JFK flight left today instead of last night. Flight to RUH left last night after arriving from HNL instead of yesterday morning. The ME A330 is not supposed to fly there. All because one triple seven bogged down, and another A350 failed to return on time because of unscheduled maintenance issues.

Honestly, they actually need two more widebodies to keep their schedules rolling.

If this situation continue, it will be redux to what PAL was in 2004, when it was at its worst doing tight rotations, and lost more revenue because of poor service.

[seven13]

Speaks why B777 did a cargo run to CAN today instead of the A333.

[XWB_flyer]

That is why the rule of three is important incase one of thwo aircraft suffer an unexpected maintenance issue they at less have a back-up aircraft ready to enter service. I find it baffling there trying to increase frequency when most of there long-haul fleet is unavailable due to being lease, stored and unscheduled maintenance being high due to them being storage for sometime.

The new management will have to learn this the hardway and unfortunately there is very little leeway for them they will need to work what the currently have for the time being.

[Eurest]

PR is supposedly at 44% Pre-CoViD longhaul 75% domestic, might be financially restricted to reactivate the other stored B777s as VFR traffic is what's driving demand.
Delaying the A350 reconfig and more A333 subs would really mean their projections were wrong.
I guess they did not project the PH to emerge from CoViD so early, as I believe no one did.

Is one of the B777's in Jordan? Maintenance? Chartered?

Are the A333 subbed for LAX the C18 W24 Y267 ones?

The 2 type widebody for PR has been outted by int'l media, are we sure the A333CEO substitutions aren't for data gathering?
(a) for a similarly configured A339 or;
(b) an EFW converted A333 P2F payload range/routing or a similar dedicated Cargo AC that can do 10hr missions (MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-MNL cargo routing?) looks oddly like the B748F or B77ERSF (dismissed 77F & A35F as those do longer than 10hrs)

The case for (A) might be Airbus asking for actual performance data, then guaranteeing ASK, trip costs & other metrics based on what the A333CEO is doing on MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-MNL/CRK
for an A339 contract performance guarantee
C18-W24-Y245 (assume 287 pax @100kgs to get max fuel @ 251T MTOW A339 for 7200nm) is more representative of a post-CoViD travel landscape as opposed to the A359 C30 W24 Y241

You could also split a hypothesized B787-10ER for C&W from L1 to L2 ala NZ splits C&W on their B789
and get a B787-10 with C16 W21 Y308 for a 345 pax B787-10ER for 7000NM

(B) is plausible but not as probable as (A) unless CX needing a Cargo Manager for MNL (5J is the other openly hiring MNL carrier) is because that previous person moved to PR (hypothesis not fact)

Acquisition costs for an A339 would certainly be 30% or more cheaper than a A359, and a B787-10 would 10-20% cheaper
4-8 frames to replace A333s for either would also be easier & earlier to arrive than the A350, A339 could arrive as early as next year.

The AFI-KLM & PR deal for Engines was originally for 12 years signed on 2011.
The extension is worded for as long as PR operates the B77W and not for a definite term like the initial 12 years.
Curiously worded right? Could we see the B77W replaced by 2028?
Esp with CFM shod A320s? Assuming the incoming (2028?) A321NEOs will likely replace CFM 56 shod A320s?
The way the "extension" is worded & what would make sense is that PR would not need another 12 year contract but only an "extension" instead of ending next year when the initial 12 year deal was signed.
Could they just be reallocating the missed CoViD period as the extension to the initial 12?
Not much flight time, GE90s and CFM 56s that might need overhauls during the initial 12 years would now take longer past the initial 12 year period.
Do you guys see PR operating CFM56-5 A320s even longer than the next 2-3 years?

[XWB_flyer]

Eurest wrote

PR is supposedly at 44% Pre-CoViD longhaul 75% domestic, might be financially restricted to reactivate the other stored B777s as VFR traffic is what's driving demand.
Delaying the A350 reconfig and more A333 subs would really mean their projections were wrong.
I guess they did not project the PH to emerge from CoViD so early, as I believe no one did.

Is one of the B777's in Jordan? Maintenance? Chartered?

Are the A333 subbed for LAX the C18 W24 Y267 ones?

The 2 type widebody for PR has been outted by int'l media, are we sure the A333CEO substitutions aren't for data gathering?
(a) for a similarly configured A339 or;
(b) an EFW converted A333 P2F payload range/routing or a similar dedicated Cargo AC that can do 10hr missions (MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-MNL cargo routing?) looks oddly like the B748F or B77ERSF (dismissed 77F & A35F as those do longer than 10hrs)

The case for (A) might be Airbus asking for actual performance data, then guaranteeing ASK, trip costs & other metrics based on what the A333CEO is doing on MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-MNL/CRK
for an A339 contract performance guarantee
C18-W24-Y245 (assume 287 pax @100kgs to get max fuel @ 251T MTOW A339 for 7200nm) is more representative of a post-CoViD travel landscape as opposed to the A359 C30 W24 Y241

You could also split a hypothesized B787-10ER for C&W from L1 to L2 ala NZ splits C&W on their B789
and get a B787-10 with C16 W21 Y308 for a 345 pax B787-10ER for 7000NM

(B) is plausible but not as probable as (A) unless CX needing a Cargo Manager for MNL (5J is the other openly hiring MNL carrier) is because that previous person moved to PR (hypothesis not fact)

Acquisition costs for an A339 would certainly be 30% or more cheaper than a A359, and a B787-10 would 10-20% cheaper
4-8 frames to replace A333s for either would also be easier & earlier to arrive than the A350, A339 could arrive as early as next year.

The AFI-KLM & PR deal for Engines was originally for 12 years signed on 2011.
The extension is worded for as long as PR operates the B77W and not for a definite term like the initial 12 years.
Curiously worded right? Could we see the B77W replaced by 2028?

Intresting Speculation while I think its either. Scanario (A) is certainly possible a Speculative  A330-300P2F  with a routing between MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-LAX routing with a 3 times weekly frequency assuming PAL  decided to acquire two A333P2F for there freight service

[Eurest]

Some tidbits pointed out by colleagues

- RR would be driving the push for A339s if ever. Not just to replace lost flight hours PBH business from A359 downsized fleet but as Asia market growth strategy. Fears business from smaller Chinese carriers may disappear and even established ones like CX may diminish. RR split NEO program cost with Airbus with 1000 order projection, really need to step up. A339s were not considered in 2016

- Don't A333 CEOs need replacement by 2025? Whats their FH/FCs related to the DSG trigger points of 100k FH/33k FC & 126k FH/44k FC for 300s.

- B777s might be in service far longer than A333. Wording of AFI-KLM extension would indicate knowledge of delivery date uncertainty for replacement. Oddly in-tune with B779 uncertainty.
Heavy checks this year would mean service for next 6 to 8 to rationalize hi costs. First B777 retirements might be in 3 years replaced with parked ones with a few more FH/FCs to go before needing C/D checks

- Only hindrance for add'l A359s for PR is pricing and slots. Higher weight variant & corresponding density would still be ideal small widebody.
PR still wants A359 & B779 widebody mix as Airspace said, but Airbus egged on by RR may be pushing A339 w/ very aggressive pricing and buyback sweeteners

- MNL is still slot restricted. Not much room for frequency. Regional widebody ops required but closed China & regulated Japan make network fleeting requirements difficult especially for high density 2nd configuration for small widebody=330 pax min

- Current gen 787 with a mix of 9 and 10 w/ GE Aviation backing. Gen2 Dreamliners fit timeline for A333 replacements
Roles may be reversed now with pricing and delivery slots as opposed to 2015/16.
Not just Airbus VS Boeing but RR VS GE

- NA colleagues are interested why last few deals by PR are EU based. Airinmar, AFI-KLM & Inflight Dublin

TLDR: PR wants A359 & B779 still. Airbus & RR pushing A339 HARD for small widebody versus B789 backed by Boeing & GE. A330 replacements the battleground. PR mainline wants to differentiate further from 5J with no more A330s, some might even say they find A339s unpalatable.

[XWB_flyer]

It seem PAL  is looking to model there fleet after LH  rather then CX  as previously.

LH has the current fleet:

A330-300 > A340-300 > A340-600 > A350-900 > B747-400 and B747-8i

LH future fleet proposa by 2025:

A330-300 > A350-900 > B747-8i > B777-9 > B787-9

Back in 2019 Lufthansa ordered the Boeing 787-9 along with additional A350-900 its presume the B787-9 will ended up with there subsidiary like Swiss and Austrian Airlines. But seems there destined for Lufthansa fleet who has deferred there orders for A350-900 to 2027 hence why they took PAL A350-900 when they don't need them. LH also recently top up there orders for B787-9 and B777-9 while the A330-300 are being transferred to there  LCC subsidiary Eurowongs.

I could envision a similar scenario with PAL where there seeking for a more Boeing wide-body fleet with the exception of the A350-900. The only issue with B787 is production delays though its possible Boeing and GE has spare frames available another reason why I think there is a stron

PAL current fleet:

A330-300 > A350-900 > B777-300ER

If PAL decided to lean for both the B787 Dreamliner and B777-9. As for which version I can see they go for both the B787-9 and B787-10 the B789 for long-hul tin routes and possibly out of CEB to North America and the B78X for high-density regional and middle-east routes. Alternatively if issue continue to persist with the Boeing 777X Program PAL may decided to begrudgingly acquire the A350-1000 as replacement for there B777-300ER.

Current scanario:

A350-900 > B787-9 > B787-10 > B777-9

Alternatively scanario:

A350-900 > A350-1000 > B787-9 > B787-10

[Eurest]

I don't think most airlines model their fleet based on others, but if they did, perhaps that was the source of their struggle.
MNL is mainly Y volume, with MNL-NRT-MNL the few very high yield prior to the new PH-JP ASA
That said, PR is also used as a private jet for the Sy clan accd'g to Arianespace, why PR craft will have J
Not a lot of carriers with that kind of market/requirements
And I don't think China will be high yield as a lot of mainland businesses have been forced back home investments wise

Curious though why LH and not say IB
PR found the ex-IB 343 configurations amenable
Perhaps their unhappiness with their WV016 A359 @ 295 pax was seeing the IB A359 @ 348 pax
A WV022 A359@330 pax?

Getting a DOC (c/nmi-pax) using the AEA framework yields the ff assuming the current astronomic fuel prices:
B748 410pax - 13.4
B77W 396 pax - 12.8
B77L 317 pax - 14.9
B77E 313 pax - 14.1
B789 290 pax - 12.7
A388 555 pax - 13.2
A359 325 pax - 12.9

I don't really have much performance data on a WV920/921 A339 or WV011 A35J because of CoViD
Perhaps Winter 22-23 will give better data

The A359 really shines on a 313-325+ pax configuration, with the B77W flexibly configured profitably from 326-396 standard seating

[XWB_flyer]

Can't deny the fact majority of pax fly ECY then either PECY and BCL. But there will always be a minority who are willing to pay slightly more the standard economy but couldn't afford regular business.  

However regardless of PAL cabin offering it cannot maintain its current route network with just Eight Long-haul aircraft (2 A359; 6 B77W) even if frequency between LAX and SFO are only 7 times weekly. They will either need re-actived more B77W or add new A350 if it where to maintain YYZ and JFK? Which will become difficult in the short term period.

[JNC03]

http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/2022/06/why-a350-1000-is-next-big-plane-for-pal.html?m=1

[XWB_flyer]

I recently gave it a read the A350-1000 seems to be right aircraft for PAL IMHO. It also nicely complement the A350-900 which could be used for Ultra long-haul routes like the US West Coast and Canada probably with a bit more seats 300+ while the A35K 350+ configuration.

[Eurest]

The A35K is good, the fact that CX is forward retiring B77Ws and mainly had A35Ks during CoViD shows it is better than the aircraft its replacing.
The problem for it is how good the smaller and cheaper A359 is.
The IB 348 seat A359 is impressive, would you really pay more for a 375 seat A35K?
MAD-SCL is fairly similar to MNL-LAX

What if Airbus offered PR the 283T A359 with close to or similar to Iberia's 348 pax (would also cover the hi-density regional role) A359 and guaranteed it to LAX, with weight restrictions for JFK and YYZ?
A 400+pax A35K then for PR?

Maybe the dual widebody plan isn't A339/A359 + B779 OR B789&10 + A35K
BUT A359&A35K (technically 1 type but not really) + B77ERSF
Apparently the global airfreight demand is here to stay for the foreseeable future thus the majority of MROs doing P2F conversions. Perhaps we'll see a B77W BCF program soon aside from IAIs ERSF

I doubt PR will drop Boeing. PR still got Q400NGs from Canada despite the Airbus group ATRs being economically better. Going Boeing for the midsize or large widebody would make US expansion much easier, esp. with UAL's behavior towards PR

[XWB_flyer]

The B787 Dreamliner is certainly worth considering especially the B787-10 for regional and middle east routes with 330+ seat in a duel-class configuration. As a sweetner a sub-fleet of B787-9 could be included with 275 seats in a Tri-class configuration or 285-290 in a Duel-class configuration. Regardless why I think the B787 is better plane overall then the A330neo and can unlocked alternative hubs to MNL

I also don't think PAL  is seeking higher capacity types as there no longer focus on just passenger and want to balance it out with freight service the challenged with crossing isn't east bound. But west bound as headwinds will pushed flight time longer and affect both pax and freight capacity so a balanced aircraft is needed. Additionally PAL has been trending down its capacity from the B747-400 with 425 to the B777-300ER with 370 seats with a drop of 55 seats. I'm expecting it to continue though I don't think it will be as drastic as the B744 and B77W probably 335-365 seats and frequency also playing a role too despite rising fuel prices.

[Arianespace]

It is really good. And you might find the 348 seater A359 soon, should they wish to follow that through. Remember they sign options for another six.



What is not clear is whether it is for more 359 or the 35k. Although, I doubt if it has the range to fly all year round to LAX with that capacity. I should say, maybe less than that configuration it will. But the 35K at 370 can do that as far as DAL (7200nm), all year round.

As you can see, PAL 359 was envisioned for very long haul destinations above 13 hours, unlike 77w designed for trunk line routes. Which means, this route, ie LAX, really needs a big bird to fill capacity efficiently. For the same amount of payload, 35k bested the 779 in almost all quantifiable metrics. And we are not yet talking about the 319t version for project sunrise which Airbus won.

You may want to look at it here why Qantas took Airbus.
https://airinsight.com/a-closer-look-at-the-qantas-project-sunrise-airbus-a350-1000/

By the way, PAL has been flying around the country exclusively by cargo using a pair of A320s.  While 77w is a desired plane, I doubt they already have enough capacity to fill it. Judging from their cargo rotation overseas, a lot is still left to be desired. But I could be wrong. They have not yet officially started this sideline.

[Arianespace]

And then this came along just today

The Recaro BL3510 economy class seat was selected by Philippine Airlines for a retrofit of a selected number of Airbus A320 aircraft. Delivery of the spare passenger seats began this month.

As a part of the Philippine-based airline’s fleet modification strategy, the overhaul involves the installation of a 180-seat cabin configuration on each of the 11 A320 aircraft that are destined for short-haul high-traffic domestic routes to be operated by the airline’s PAL Express subsidiary.

The selected A320 aircraft were originally equipped with a mixed 156-seat configuration for Asian regional flights of the mainline carrier PAL, which now deploys larger Airbus A321 aircraft with business, premium and economy class seating on said regional routes.
https://economyclassandbeyond.boardingarea.com/2022/06/15/aix22-recaro-signs-philippine-airlines-for-additional-bl3510-seats/

Watch as all PAL A320s are heading GAP.