Airlines In The Philippines II

[XWB_flyer]

Former 8785 now registered as 2-MAHY has been spotted at Clark. I belived it was previously stored in Allice Springs?

https://www.facebook.com/100063924331348/posts/pfbid0v5cZN24z5s9cpsNacBbyu9Q2ApLVkC3moXcfZJVmtpSqSHnZmYLLVHdnCYVvBDApl/?sfnsn=mo

[XWB_flyer]

Emirates will be launching First Class service on one of its four daily frequency between Dubai and Manila using there Boeing 777-300ER. Very surprised moved you asked me! Considering the preciption of the Philippine market being low-yield and price consensus among AvGeeks!

https://bilyonaryo.com/2022/07/13/dubai-based-emirates-launches-first-class-service-from-manila/

[Eurest]

MNL always had F demand, however, SQ and CX basically cornered the market
But CX is virtually non-existent atm creating an opportunity for others like EK to grab market share.
EK has in the past flew F shod B77Ws when Emirati royal family members flew to MNL

8760 is at Tarbes
8762 is now Smartlynx as 9H-SMF
8763 is flying
8764 is flying
8765 is at Dassault as EI-HAJ
8766 is parked
8771 is flying
8780 is parked
8781 is flying
8782 is flying (309 doing Middle-east?)
8783 is flying
8784 is at CRK as 2-RPCA
8785 is at CRK from ASP Dec'21 as 2-MAHY
8786 is in Shannon (after being in Bordeaux) as 2-CPRO
8789 is parked

Flying widebodies for PR are 6 A333s, 8 B77W (7773 started flying again), 2 A359?

[seven13]

PR has been fielding the triclass 878X on DXB and DOH route for quite a while now

[XWB_flyer]

Makes me wonder how many A330-300 those PR intend to keep? My best guess is 8 with 2-3 going to GAP which will be re-configured to 359 in an all-econony configuration (with probably 2-4-2 layout), though I'm unsure? Also I wonder if they will be keeping them beyond 2024 and order a replacement say 2023 and have it be delivered by 2024!? which is possible assuming either manufacturer doesn't have a significant backlog or will it be through leasing say GECAS for Boeing and European  lessor for Airbus.

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

I asked about 81 and 74 and why leasing them back would take time

I forgot to answer this question. It so happen to have a price tag of US$118 million.

Arianespace wrote

Did you know that out of this 15 planes, 7 are financial leases, and 8 are operating leases. Post C11, PAL terminated the latter except two while continue to operate the former except one.

Eurest wrote

8760 is at Tarbes
8762 is now Smartlynx as 9H-SMF
8763 is flying
8764 is flying
8765 is at Dassault as EI-HAJ
8766 is parked
8771 is flying
8780 is parked
8781 is flying
8782 is flying (309 doing Middle-east?)
8783 is flying
8784 is at CRK as 2-RPCA
8785 is at CRK from ASP Dec'21 as 2-MAHY
8786 is in Shannon (after being in Bordeaux) as 2-CPRO
8789 is parked

As to PAL A330 fleet composition, here is some useful information you can't find anywhere else.

8760 -operating lease (cit)
8762 -operating lease (cit)
8763 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8764 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8765 -operating lease (dcal)
8766 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8771 -operating lease (avolon)
8780 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8781 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8782 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8783 -financial lease (PAL plane)
8784 -operating lease (bbam)
8785 -operating lease (bbam)
8786 -operating lease (bbam)
8789 -operating lease (bbam)

Find out which one is flying to understand the company.

[Eurest]

XWB_flyer wrote

Makes me wonder how many A330-300 those PR intend to keep? My best guess is 8 with 2-3 going to GAP which will be re-configured to 359 in an all-econony configuration (with probably 2-4-2 layout), though I'm unsure? Also I wonder if they will be keeping them beyond 2024 and order a replacement say 2023 and have it be delivered by 2024!? which is possible assuming either manufacturer doesn't have a significant backlog or will it be through leasing say GECAS for Boeing and European  lessor for Airbus.

2P could also get the 363 A333
Those bad J's look stellar compared to TR or D7's premium cabin
No IFE won't also be a problem

Both manufacturers do have significant backlogs, similar to 2018
If both manufacturers can overcome the supply chain issues, and if certain airlines defer due to the Global recession, there is the possibility.
Personally, I would opt to something similar to TR's B789
375 pax, new gen tech, markedly different from 5J's A339. Won't have 8 abreast vs 9 LCC identifier
But if Toulouse can pull some strings, something akin to VS's A35K they use on MCO/BGI
397 pax in 16J, 56 W, 325Y (45 in Y+)
1ea in 3Q '24, 4Q' 24 & 2 in 1H'25 might be plausible

Also GECAS is now merged w/ AerCap (but GE owns 46% of the merged co.)
They do have incoming deliveries for 9 787s in '23 & 6 in '26

[XWB_flyer]

What if PAL decided to replenish there medium-haul fleet with A321LR or XLR and A330-900neo while transferring older A321-200 and A330-300 to GAP if PAL opts for a duel-brand strategy to make ME viable there should be a small premium cabin as PE may not be enough so a small Biz Class with 12 to 18 seats could work.

As for new aircraft the A321LR  could work for GAP with Y220 or 199 (W12 Y187) with a small PE cabin in 2-2 layout in three rows with 38" seat pitch while  regular Y with 3-3 layout, PED holder and USB charging ports and 30" seat pitch for Australia and East Asia expansion.

Though all of those will require a new hub so maybe when NMIA becomes operational.

[Eurest]

The Middle-East routes are, right now, the only meaningful routes PR would perhaps want an A339, since MEL/SYD/BNE can be done w/ an A21N.
Might not be a priority right now, as funds might be prioritized for NA ULH ops and the jets that fly there.
For transpacific ops,both A359 and B789 have the payload advantage over the A339.
To have the range flexibility of an A359 or B789, an A339 would only have at most 287 pax to fly its max 7200nm.
But that 287 pax A339, would be economically hampered vs the 5J A339 at 460pax on ME or OZ missions

When NMIA becomes operational, the A339 becomes a compelling choice as its quite more affordable, and PR now has the slots for route expansion to FRA, FCO, TLV, DME, IST, AKL and the A339 can be configured in a way that makes it economically proficient vs the B789 or A359
They could always start an expansionary hub that can be moved to NMIA at CRK or CEB

Though it is, as you've said, quite probable and fiscally sensible idea for 2P to handle ME ops with either the 363 or 359 A333
Though they will be 12 years old soon, their cycles & hours were pretty much nil during the pandemic

[Arianespace]

Did you remember, PAL had 8 414 seat A330s meant for middle east operation in 2014. That would have been GAP. In fact, GAP flew one to DXB. But then they abandoned the dual-brand strategy in 2016, and converted the 414 seaters to 309 seats with Business, Premium Economy and Economy class cabins for $80 million. It has 2-4-2 configuration.


These converted A333s fly the premium routes of Honolulu, Melboourne, Sydney, Auckland, Hongkong, and before Seoul and Tokyo. The latter two are serviced by A321neos now. If you take a closer look, they are also the same plane which you see now flying LAX.


Now get back to my lists, and find out which one has these amenities.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCM0Pj6UMAIlVue?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCM0QXcV0AA_Z0D?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCM0OtYUQAAw3x9?format=jpg&name=large
https://360manila.com/our-works/philippine-airlines-a330/
https://ne-np.facebook.com/pwtmal/videos/philippine-airlines-reconfigured-airbus-a330-cabin-walkthrough/542217789847107/


The other 7 A333s (876x series) has 368 meant for regional flights, ie China, Bangkok, Korea. It has 2-2-2 for J and 3-3-3 configuration for Y as shown here. It was relegated later to fly middle east.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Philippine_Airlines/Philippine_Airlines_Airbus_A330-300_V3.php


Based on the lists, you can see that PAL has invested in both configurations, having financial leases on both, and discarded almost all of its operating leases after C11.


Interesting to note, they re-configured again two of the eight A330s that no longer served Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore to 359 seats from 309 . That means they will have 3-3-3 configuration for Y while retaining 1-2-1 for J. As to which of those planes are to be reconfigured remains to be seen and we will soon find out.

Judging from current services, they would most likely serve the middle east as well.

[XWB_flyer]

Arianespace wrote

The other 7 A333s (876x series) has 368 meant for regional flights, ie China, Bangkok, Korea. It has 2-2-2 for J and 3-3-3 configuration for Y as shown here. It was relegated later to fly middle east.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Philippine_Airlines/Philippine_Airlines_Airbus_A330-300_V3.php


Based on the lists, you can see that PAL has invested in both configurations, having financial leases on both, and discarded almost all of its operating leases after C11.


Interesting to note, they re-configured again two of the eight A330s that no longer served Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore to 359 seats from 309 . That means they will have 3-3-3 configuration for Y while retaining 1-2-1 for J. As to which of those planes are to be reconfigured remains to be seen and we will soon find out.

Judging from current services, they would most likely serve the middle east as well.

This is could be due to aircraft availability and utilisation problems as to why the 363 A330 are flying in thoss routes. Though its also could be that the require an aircraft with higher capacity then the A330 closer to the B777. I imagine the bulk of the Re-configured A330 beside flying to the Middle East will also be used for domestic routes like CEB, DVO, and GES.  

[XWB_flyer]

Eurest wrote

The Middle-East routes are, right now, the only meaningful routes PR would perhaps want an A339, since MEL/SYD/BNE can be done w/ an A21N.
Might not be a priority right now, as funds might be prioritized for NA ULH ops and the jets that fly there.
For transpacific ops,both A359 and B789 have the payload advantage over the A339.
To have the range flexibility of an A359 or B789, an A339 would only have at most 287 pax to fly its max 7200nm.
But that 287 pax A339, would be economically hampered vs the 5J A339 at 460pax on ME or OZ missions

I don't think PAL needs a 460 pax A339N. But it those play a factor when choosing a replacement Qantas would be PAL main competitor in the PH-AUS route and there currently using either the A332 or A333 depending on the season. With the order for the A321XLR they may start to expand on there other routes like BNE and MEL same with CEB who now operates the A339 to Sydney and won't be to long before MEL will also see the Flying Jeepney! They also have the A321XLR on order and will probably used it for further expansion like BNE.

But I do agree it seem PAL priorty is North America and will probably only foucs on Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East at a later timeframe. I don't think PAL has to choose one rather it needs both Long-range narrow body and Med-sized wide body for its Short-to-medium haul network at less they have the A321neo on the one hand and a replacement for the A330-300 on the other.

[Eurest]

McKinsey - Long-haul LCC

A high density configuration is one of the ways mainline carriers utilise as tools against LCCs
Why you see 400+, 7 abreast in J B77Ws from premium carriers like EK or QR on routes like MNL or even VS 397pax 16J A35K on BGI or MCO where it sees LCC presence

PR won't definitely need a 460 pax A339, but it would be disadvantaged as well flying only a 287 pax A339 when PR's bread & butter is the Y volume.
Look at what's flying for PR atm, 8 B77W, 2 A359, 3 309 A333, 3 363 A333

I think why PR mentioned only A359s and B779s before is they want fleet flexibility for better utilization
Right now, all the widebodies have around 10hrs downtime with the absence of North Asia regionals are they are configured very mission specific w/c works great for a larger airliner, but perhaps not for someone like PR.
Though PR could use their B77W on ME routes, they are not as efficient vs the 400+ of the ME3 nor would they be able to return in time for their raison d^etre NA missions.
The 363 A333 could do HNL or MEL/SYD, but they don't have seatback IFE, W or the better J product.
The 309s could do the 363 missions, but they would have poorer economics.
And it seems Filipino Migrant Workers have also been affected by the premium leisure bug, but instead of W, they now spend on EK & QR Y, instead of 5J or 363 A333 PR. Even DOH/DXB-CRK are high LF even before the new terminal

So instead of a fleet of 15 A333, 6 A359, 10 B77W, PR would simplify their fleet into 16 A359 & 14 B779
All A359's would be say 313pax and would do the NA missions plus the 309 medium haul missions, and the high yield regionals the 309 A333 would do like JPN, SIN and OZ when demand requires
PR would then have 2 configurations for the B777-9
6 426 pax B779 in 42 J, 384 Y for NA & Regionals w/ high yield
8 461 pax B779 in 21J, 56W, 384Y for ME & other missions with high demand, limited slotting & even west coast NA missions when winds take even LAX to 13hr30

In case someone were to ask, those B779 are based on June revisions, the 426 is the new Bi-class up from the previous 414 Boeing: Airport Compatibility - Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning
8F= 14J; 21J=94Y
J is typical 7 abreast direct-aisle staggered catalogue model
*edited for last paragraph*

[Arianespace]

By the way, the 368 seater A333 doesn't have the range to fly HNL or AKL. The 309 seater does. Also, CEB A339 does not have the range to fly HNL at its current configuration.

Similarly, the 426 seater 779 doesn't have the leg to fly SFO/LAX-MNL. It will cross pacific year round if it limit itself between 360-370 seats.

[XWB_flyer]

As Arianespace has mentioned the B779 with 426 seats doesn't have the legs to cross the Pacific to North America I'd personally wait until it actually enter service with Lufthansa  in the middle of the decade before assuming its configuration. But if I have to speculate and with 360-370 capacity in mind probably 364 in a three class configuration "40 BCL 24 PECY 300 ECY" which is only (-6 decrease) from the B77W in two-class 42 BCL 328 ECY. As for the A359 PAL could probably go with a 312-316 capacity though AF has shown its possible to fit 324 in a three class configuration.

[Eurest]

The 363 A333 can do MNL-HNL-MNL, we've already seen PR use the 363 on MNL-ICN-LAX-HNL-MNL as pointed out during the "Does PR have enough widebodies" phase of the discussion by someone here right?
And HNL-MNL is 10hrs, the same flight time as MidEast to MNL; it's not MLA-MNL on a 414pax A333
Range is always relative to payload, when I say can do, it's not for the specific mission 100% of the time.
Besides, HNL rarely fills to the brim even with a 309
I'm sorry to both Arianespace and XWB Flyer for the confusion.

It similar to say how PR flew the A322 to MEL/SYD during CoViD or near the opening up this year, as even it was full in Y coming back to MNL, the flight time was around 7:30
I think you can even find a trip report about it, because that how someone asked me about it.

The 426 pax B779 is rated for 7285nmi (same as B744), more than enough for MNL-LAX-MNL for around 97% of the time
Will it need to be weight-restricted when the LAX-MNL goes past 14:30? likely, but would it make sense for any airline to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a bigger variant of its' current plane but have a less dense config?
Perhaps your idea of the 426 is of the 2020 data, not the latest June where they upgraded the typical from 414 to 426?
Again my apologies, I anticipated some confusion so I tried to edit in add'l info, but failed to properly explain my info.

For the first B779 operators, I'd look into the ME3 B779 and not LH as their mission profiles and stage lengths are comparable say ME-NA ~ PH-NA, also their high density configurations might be of interest for PH-ME

[XWB_flyer]

Eurest wrote

The 426 pax B779 is rated for 7285nmi (same as B744), more than enough for MNL-LAX-MNL for around 97% of the time
Will it need to be weight-restricted when the LAX-MNL goes past 14:30? likely, but would it make sense for any airline to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a bigger variant of its' current plane but have a less dense config?
Perhaps your idea of the 426 is of the 2020 data, not the latest June where they upgraded the typical from 414 to 426?
Again my apologies, I anticipated some confusion so I tried to edit in add'l info, but failed to properly explain my info.

For the first B779 operators, I'd look into the ME3 B779 and not LH as their mission profiles and stage lengths are comparable say ME-NA ~ PH-NA, also their high density configurations might be of interest for PH-ME

All of this are assumptions until the B777X actually flies then we don't know maybe its actually more capable then what Boeing is projecting. Also looking at the trend the pass few years PAL has been decreasing capacity. The B744 had 425 seats in a two-class layout while the B77W currently has 370 seats a net deduction of -55 seats while Business class remains unchanged in both. As for a potential B779 I personally think the trend will continue the question is by how much? 25-50 seats is my best guest as for ME I personally think the B787-10 would make a perfect replacement for the A330-300 as it can carry more both pax and freight. Whither PAL will actually order the B787 remains to be seen though its probably being considered along with the A330neo. But until an order is made the jury is still out and we can continue to guess for the time being!

[Arianespace]

PAL would love to have 386Y and 42J for a total seat of 428 on its 77w if it had the range to fly North America. Sadly it doesn't. The maximum seat it can have to have a viable non-stop operation is 370. While it can perfectly fly the middle east with no problem. Unless they want to stop at GUM again which the B744 was previously doing. But that is exactly what the airline does not want.

If indeed the 779 turn out to be 17% more efficient than 77w then they would most likely have 380 seats when ordered by PAL, and still fly non-stop all year round. That said, it would still be beaten by payload of the A35K.

[Eurest]

Again, I agree with the points raised above
These are all assumptions and that the A35K will have payload advantage over the B777-9

When I made the post about the the A359 & B779, it was based on what I've been hearing that PR only plans 2 widebody types, and it still is the A359 & B779

The B779 426 Typical configuration is what I posted, w/ the catalogue J configuration with a staggered 7 abreast 6 rows from L1 to L2 and Y up to the rear exits.

Is this a likely configuration for PR? No, far from it if you compare the Boeing B77W Typical configuration to PR's actual 375 seater:
Boeing "typical" 2 class 378 seater B77W
28 J in a staggered 7 abreast
350 Y in 9 abreast @ 31" pitch
Boeing "typical" 3 class 370 seater B77W (kinda close if not for the F)
12 F in 6 abreast @ 87" pitch
42J in 7 abreast @ 50" pitch
315Y in 9 abreast 2-5-2 @ 32" pitch
even the 368 seater comes pretty close to the overall pax #
So Boeing's "typical" in overall pax is fewer but would you not say its fairly close for the overall pax count giving us an "idea" of a B779 approximate "capacity"

The reason why I posted the 426pax @ 7285nmi B779 its around 1:1 the non-Combi B744 of PR
And during the SMC reign, PR instituted weight restrictions to avoid the GUM T-stop on the B744

From what I heard, the A346 was the preferred choice as the B744 successor because it would be bigger than the B77W. But the B77W's flat out superior economics @ 10 abreast made it the industry choice
But PR still wants size for NA because of the MNL slot restrictions, thus the 4 B748 "planned order" with the 788s

As for the A35K, it's still going to be slightly smaller in capacity than the B77W because its' @ 9 abreast. And PR seems to be strict w/ the 32" pitch for Y
If we consider CX who has similar configured B77W & A35K, we see this fact
CX B77W "77G" 340 pax
40J 32W 268 Y (9 abreast)
CX A35K "351" 334 pax
46J 32W 256Y (9 abreast)
Considering PR's B77W is 10 abreast, wouldn't the size difference even be more for PR if it chose the A35K as B77W replacement? Unless PR chooses 10 abreast as well on the A35K, w/c would be markedly different from the 9 abreast A359 they have

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a B78J as A333 replacement, if PR does ever consider a 3rd widebody in its future plans. Allowing it to still have a Boeing relationship for NA expansion into YVR, ORD, MIA and have a fleet of All Composite Widebody Aircraft w/ B78J, A359s and A35Ks

[Arianespace]

The 77w was chosen not exactly because of economics of the plane but because of the paid deposits for the 744 which would otherwise be forfeited if not taken.

The A346 was indeed bigger than 77w and the latter more efficient for most airlines. Not with PAL though, as it was prepared to take the efficiency loss for a payload gain on direct flight. But the airline is not prepared to lose the deposits to Boeing.

According to PAL folks then, consideration was mainly focused on the payload chart and not the range chart which is associated with seat counts. In fact, it is still the main consideration now. JJB previously acknowledged that had there been no Boeing deposits they would have taken the 346 gladly in 2006. Notwithstanding the fact that 77w seats more passengers, they were still going for the 346. Which goes to show where the airlines directions are.

It is very clear, the goal of PAL was cross the pacific non-stop. They have lucrative earnings for this unique service principally because of their "unique" target market. Why "unique"? Becuase you need to carry all the balikbayan boxes that passengers brought with them. You coulnd't find anything like this around the world. And with large diasphora, other airlines took the market too, with a one stop difference. A stop (ei GUM) erases that difference, and the premium price tag. In JJBs mind, premium fare for direct flight would pay whatever inefficiency the 346 has with the 77w.

And while delayed baggages is in the news for EU and US travellers right now, its not the norm in the Philippines. Because each boxes the balikbayan and OFW carries are equally important to hand carried ones.

In sum, passenger volume doesn't really matter for PAL on its North American operations. What matters is the range to fly the pacific non-stop. Thats all there is to it.

And so, even if the 779 seats more than the 35k but the airline couldn't benefit from those extra seats, what benefit does it got? nothing.