Airlines In The Philippines II

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
666 messages Options
1 ... 23242526272829 ... 34
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

XWB_flyer
So those that mean A330-300 will probably stay longer? I wonder if the reg on some of Ex-PAL A333s will be permanent or like the A350's will returned in a few years? Though it was previously commented that they where to be gradually withdrawn from the fleet in the next few years so I'm thinking it remains unchanged.

On another topic there are rumors of PAL converting some of there A321-200 to the A321 P2F or will be source from older model if true it could releve the need for widebody on some routes to return to the A321 during the Pandemic for cargo operations?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Eurest
This post was updated on .
The plan seems to be a gradual ramping up of the fleet in a disciplined manner.

B77Ws going back to a fleet of 10 from the current 8

A333s are 6 flying, 3 parked. When all 9 are flying, 4 leased ones will supposedly return to the fleet starting next year  (?) allowing lessors to make money out of their currently non-performing assets

A359s 2 are flying, 4 with LH, the LH ones are supposedly on 4 year lease, coinciding w/ the 2026 return Arianespace mentioned.

4 returning A350s in 2026 will essentially "replace" the 4 financed 309s A333 in terms of capacity leaving the fleet n the same year.
So PR will only need to replace the departing B77Ws from '24(?) to 2027

In 2019, Boeing responded to PR's RFP for 7777 & 7776's replacement. The RFP was for the 777X because apparently the 777-8 will do JFK-MNL w/ maximum payload but in 2019 it was just a paper airplane then, thus legally cited as B777X.
The problem is now, both B777-9 and 8 don't seem to fit the required timeframe in the next few years

Since the pandemic really didn't see most of the widebodies cycles & hours used up, there's some leeway for aircraft lifecycle

I've now confirmed the new no orders 'til 2026 for PR
But the B77W replacements, or at the very least, a competitor for the entire fleet's replacement, might likely be lessor placements, similar to the last 4 B77W

Or on Airbus side, Toulouse is splitting MH' A330NEO orders into 10MH orders, & 10 lessor placements, & GA is also getting an Avolon A330NEO placement. So as to set a precedent, esp. with GA still negotiating a restructuring.Airbus seems to see the mutually beneficial lessor relationship as a key strategy in the order race with Boeing.
Even more relevant for PR, as lessors that were affected by PR's C11, can somewhat make up for it ensuring they would be the ones leasing to PR, instead of a competitor.

Or we could just see PR employ the 359 pax A333 via ICN/NRT/HNL as B77W replacements , or what I've said in the past, late built B77W on short-term lease.
With the latter, PR is able to build a fleet when it knows what it can do no longer slot restricted by NAIA.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

XWB_flyer
I thought Author mentioned no new orders for 2 years so my guess is probably 2024 though its possible the New COO would like to take time being new at the helm and decided to take a more conservative approach to any New orders although this could be interpreted diffirently to maybe instead of announcing a new aircraft order in 2024 it will provided by the lessor as replacement for the A330-300 while the new order for 2026 will be a replacement for the Boeing 777 with delivery to follow after 2 years.

As for replacement for the Tri-class A330 after 2026 PAL could deployed the A350-900 on regional routes for premium destinations like SIN and HND while for more tourist oriented routes the 359-seater A330-300 will deployed on those said routes ICN, NRT and HNL.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Eurest
I think I worded that improperly
What I was told that possible new aircraft arrivals would be lessor placements from 2024-2026
Aircraft deliveries from a PR order will be 2026 the earliest

To use the MH 20 A330NEO upcoming order as an example, most of the initial deliveries will be from the 10 lessor placements, and the 10 MH orders will be delivered later.
It will be a MH order for 20, but the A330NEO orderbook will only add 10MH orders as the 10 lessor placements would have already been accounted for.

The A333s in storage would have maintenance burden relief from their C check monthly intervals, and the usual practice is to replace the aircraft before an HMV, in the case of the A330, the C8 at 144mos/12yr, ergo the MH NEO order now to replace their A332/333 soon.

The B77Ws HMV would be based on FC/FH so the Cayman 4 or the finance leased ones (3 EX-IM/Pajun & the Penta) would have a longer possible stay, as even now we see them on days w/ just 1 FC & 6 FH
As for the 6 on operating lease, I can only confirm 1 w/ an unchanged from original lease expiry date.

Also, the right to cancel A21N orders for '26-29 is in line with the belly cargo focus
A21Ns might be relegated to int'l regionals from secondary hubs or regionals with numerous frequencies like HKG or SIN where a couple of earlier scheduled flights would be operated by widebodies for belly cargo, and the later timed ones w/ A21Ns
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

XWB_flyer
Thanks for clarifying it! I agreed with your statement especially with deployment of the A21N on regional routes while on higher demand routes they will supplement Wide-body aircraft on belly cargo.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

seven13
Currently PR has been depolying the B777 on TPE, A350/A330 on SGN. This routes are A321 routes but I’m guessing it’s due to the cargo business that justifies the deployment of wide bodies to these routes. I wonder if it would be the same for CAN and eventually launch SZX due to cargo demand when China opens up.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

suedehd
Do you see a path where the 321neo LR can do fifth freedom flights via Mumbai or Delhi  eg Manila-India-Tel Aviv, Manila-India-Teheran, Manila-India-Pakistan.  Traffic rights aside, is it economically feasible to do 5th freedom using narrow body assuming India is prioritized or does it require the A330 (version agnostic)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Eurest
I'm not that familiar with the 2021 revision to the IND-PHL ASA, but I think there's a provision for a negotiated 5th freedom
A21N might be viable for something like MNL-DEL-DME or MNL-BOM-any of the Greek Island
PR seems to like using narrowbodies for 5th freedom like CNS-AKL, TPE-KIX, BKK-DEL
But both DEL & BOM were planned A21N routes pre-CoViD
But isn't their a MBBS issue that might affect pax volume?

Moving onto another BRIC nation
China might also see the B77W when it opens up, as the charter tour groups merited the high density A333s so pax demand is there. Granted of course, they can be timed in-between the NA missions
Even now, we see dedicated China cargo only flights esp. from NNG, so a A333 might not have enough payload capacity from China air freight demand.

Anyways, would PR be interested in ZeroAvia hydrogen system Dash8 retrofits? Zero emission propulsion would massively help PR attain its carbon emissions reduction goals, and would be a huge marketing boon for green tech for PR
ZeroAvia might be interested in a testbed in a tropical climate, PR could offer one of its Dash8's for being an initial operator

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

XWB_flyer
Eurest wrote
Moving onto another BRIC nation
China might also see the B77W when it opens up, as the charter tour groups merited the high density A333s so pax demand is there. Granted of course, they can be timed in-between the NA missions
Even now, we see dedicated China cargo only flights esp. from NNG, so a A333 might not have enough payload capacity from China air freight demand.
Previously the only destination PR deployed the B77W was HKG although they did used it to PEK in 2011 and vaccine flights during the Pandemic. Gonna be intresting to see how China will play out as its mentioned to be a foucs market on there filing of C11 back in 2021.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Eurest
This post was updated on .
The morning (0730-0800) flights to HKG seemed vital for CX and PR
The CX flight always had F, and PR almost always used all types of widebodies, esp the B744

The current cargo only flights from CAN, NNG, IXN, MFM, HKG, PVG, SIN, KUL, BKK, TPE are all possiblities for aircraft upsize to get belly cargo.

PR to Europe via BKK might make sense, perhaps even LHR with the 309 A333. Since even direct, the routing would be somewhat similar w/out Siberian airspace. TG product is fairly similar too.
The northern winters will be harsh due to climate change and heating bills will be immense due to the Nordstream cuts. Plus, the PH climate from Dec-Feb is quite pleasant.
The LHR slot waivers might only be up to end of S22 as well.

*edited for add'l info

DL cabin crew to reestablish MNL base it closed, started Sep'21. ATL training, not MSP like the NW days.
SEA-MNL in with A339, supposedly connected to Blinken's visit (is that soon?) as a slew of military & economic deals are expected to be announced between US&PH.
DoT will assign SFO to UA and AA gets LAX (the PR codeshare most likely if still on table), this is the regular splitting between the US3.
ICN-MNL is no longer necessary with KE/OZ merger getting KE the seats it wanted ex-MNL.
DL the soonest to fly, but don't discount AA with an oddball LAX-CRK on a B77W and UA with a SFO-CEB (CEB is alternate airport for SFO-SIN so UA establishing a presence made sense, also to appease the NH JV) w/a 789 as DoT encourages the US3 to split up, with a fly it soon or lose it to a competitor.

Apparently PH might receive as "carrots" ex-Afghan Air Force A-29 and UH-60s for cancelling the Mil-171 Russian deal, if PH had push thru, it would have gotten the "stick" of not being able to buy components for its' S-70is & 412EPs and engines for the T129 and FA50s (CAATSA sanction)
Not sure though if Boeing finally gets a PH purchase, Boeing Defense though with Chinooks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

JNC03
Will Delta go back to Manila again?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fifth Freedom Rights

Arianespace
Administrator
Did you know that PH-based carriers has fifth freedom rights from BKK like TG has in MNL?

Technically, PAL can fly LHR via BKK. In fact, PR used to fly Europe via Bangkok and Karachi. The PR codes for these sectors are still there, 7xx. ASEAN codes are 5xx, but BKK has 7xx, ie PR730, LHR 720/21-722/23, originally AMS, AMS 724/25, FRA 726/27, CDG 728/29, FCO 740 originally CDG. Before, 70-uk, 72-nl, 74-fr, 76-it, 78-de. Its still 7 but the middle number has changed after 1999.

Lately, PR flew BKK to DEL on fifth freedom (PR752/53) until it was suspended. Likewise TG flew KIX ex MNL on the same rights, until suspended.

PAL Europe Destination in 1997
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41256809@N06/4033091995

LHR slot waiver for PAL ends Summer of 2022 is true.

AA is still a pipe dream as its partnership agreement with PR remains in limbo after UA opposition. Only two american passenger carriers and two cargo operators from mainland are allowed to operate in the PH. All of which were already taken, ie UA and DL for passengers, and FedEx and UPS for cargo.

According to CAB DL flights to PH is temporarily suspended. If it were indefinite, then its license to operate could already be revoked. But they are keeping their license current by renewing it.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fifth Freedom Rights

XWB_flyer
So is PR planning to launch fifth freedom between BKK and LHR using a 309-seat A330-300?

Also surprised to learn that Delta has renewed there CAB application there slots in MNL I was expecting them to cease operations and rely on there JV partner Korean Air though its possible that KL will lease the slot from DL if its possible?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fifth Freedom Rights

Eurest
W22 starts 30Oct w/c is 90 days away, could also be possible they are selling the LHR slots?
LHR is understaffed, perhaps an extension could be in the cards?
There are 2 parked A333s in CRK (old terminal1 off ramps near 2 D7 A333), and isn't there a PR A333 getting work done in the LTP A380 hangar?
Perhaps PR is just waiting for add'l A333s that need lapsed CT maintenance tasks to be done and LHR might be back?

As for SEA-MNL, I think it's been on the books for a while and the A339 from MNL did always end up in SEA
PR did planned 2x weekly MNL-SEA pre-CoViD
DL's MNL service was an indefinite suspension due to CoViD, but the 5th freedom ICN-MNL service was known to be cut for good
The old timetable ex-MNL officially continued onto SEA & ATL
DL291 ICN-MNL STD1825 STA2135 A339 M/W/Th/Sa
DL290 MNL-ICN STD0955 STA1505 A339 Tu/Th/F/Su
Would this have had fallen under the no layover longer than 3 hrs restriction at MNL if resumed nowadays?
KE and OZ w/ just 1 frequency MNL-ICN currently, would that be enough for DL full resumption to KOR?
The increased MTOW A339 & increased margins on air freight might have made SEA-MNL direct warranted
SEA did have 2 ICN originating flights before, a direct ICN and the other one from MNL, the direct one remains but the other moved to PVG

The UA & AA ones hinge on the Blinken visit (improved ASA would mean US DoT allotment, the current ones seem to be grandfathered from PanAm ones), the DL one is likely to happen soon (unless Monkeypox); as DL does have the military contract, and w/ the VFA no longer under threat of cancellation, there is more of a cause to maintain a PH presence other than charter flying into SFS.
Safe to say they are speculative compared to the DL one

Also is 5J's 4th A339 (RP-C3903) still awaiting engines or is it really set for a later delivery? 2yrs 4mos completed and still not flying
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

APEC Study by IATA

Eurest
This post was updated on .
Explaining SEA-MNL further
IATA 2016 APEC City Pairs recommended for increased trade here 

JFK-MNL, ORD-MNL & SEA-MNL were identified
The US pairs for the PH would be the same, but YYZ-MNL would be higher than the 3 US ones
For SIN, it was JFK, LAX, SFO

SQ has increased NA capacity w/ the identified routes, 2x daily for SFO and LAX & JFK w/ 1 direct & 1 1 stop making bank now

MNL-YYZ was projected to grow from 224-459 pax both ways 80% traffic capture via a direct service, and we now see it as a PR mainstay, so the projections held sway

MNL-JFK projections were 202-255 from 2015-2018, but the route went better than YYZ, enough that PR had an RFP for an aircraft for the route as the main consideration

ORD & SEA had a 60% onwards connections potential beyond their forecasted demand numbers, so they would be better off for those that have hubs
That said, ORD & IAH were not seen as economically viable in 2015 since they are ULH but not as high pax both ways as either YYZ or JFK

Leaving SEA-MNL for the US3 as its a DL hub, with DL inheriting NW's mileage holders, w/ a military logistics contract, and already historically established presence w/ the bonus that its on the shorter end of what is considered a long-haul flight (10700km)

The 2016 recommendations were for a 4x weekly flight ON DL's 293 pax A333 garnering an 92% load factor

Flying SEA-MNL direct now makes more sense than SEA-ICN-MNL:
More fuel efficient A339 or A359 available w/ more payload
CoViD policy this year has seen the PH w a less restrictive one
Flying direct is around 300km shorter, even compared to NW's old SEA-KIX-MNL or the DL SEA-NRT-MNL route (similar)
Direct would also be 1 less FC, w/ total FH being 45 mins less
Also, no airspace that is unresponsive to Wx deviations to avoid another N664 incident
Increased cargo volume+margins US-Asia, just look at the UA GUM hub & the recently added cargo only flights; or FX & 5X at CRK w/ 763F's & even a 77F for FX
Better capture of beyond traffic versus 1 stop, improving SEA traffic as a hub

edited to add the link to the IATA study from APEC 12.2016
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: APEC Study by IATA

Arianespace
Administrator
W22 starts 30Oct w/c is 90 days away, could also be possible they are selling the LHR slots?
From the grapevine, PR is keeping LHR so they are NOT selling slots. The slots for W22 is leased to BA. Perhaps they know too well the value of slot-restricted airport.


Would this have had fallen under the no layover longer than 3 hrs restriction at MNL if resumed nowadays?
It was indeed.
Unfortunately for them, T3 doesn't have a parking lot, and they are required to vacate the gate when another airline docks, unless they pay extra 9 hours to MIAA for gate parking like ANA and SIA does. Previously, ANA, DAL, and SIA had luxury of overnight parking. Not anymore.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

PAL Restructuring

Arianespace
Administrator
Do you know how many slots PAL had now with LHR?



This is the reason you see 720/721, and 722/723
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Seattle

Arianespace
Administrator
Perhaps you need to read the battle between UA and AA for SEA launch. It was supposed to be serviced by PR A359 pre-covid. Its also good to see the version of the US side of things. Of course, we all know the reason for UA woes in MNL is Australia.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/03/19/american-airlines-codeshare-with-philippine-airlines-continues-new-strategy--if-united-allows/?sh=4540bf6f3346

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/04/07/american-airlines-and-united-debate-philippine-airlines-partnership/?sh=aaa46367f12a
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Restructuring

Eurest
In reply to this post by Arianespace
That seems to be a continuation of this slot timing swap

The other slots are marked as PR720A & 721A, for day 1 & 3, for day 2 4 5 6 7 they are identified as 720 & 721
You can see them here as KU leased the PR slots for W21 and returned them for S22

I was actually asking if a direct SEA-MNL would be considered new operations, since it now originate from a different port but the same AC type, flight number and operator, under the slot coordinators guidelines found here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DELTA

Arianespace
Administrator
Eurest wrote
I was actually asking if a direct SEA-MNL would be considered new operations, since it now originate from a different port but the same AC type, flight number and operator, under the slot coordinators guidelines found here
If we are talking DAL, It was. But the real issue here is not the route but the layover parking with DL hugging the gate, to the exclusion of other airline user. The story would have been different if there is a remote stand vacant but there is none. Solution, to hug the gate pay the fees like CPA, ANA, and SIA does. The difference is that they have multiple flight operations. They only have one.

Actually, it all boils down to payment of additional fees which Atlanta is cutting, together with its operations after dismal performance last year. It was even suggested for them to fly SEA in the evening and ATL in the morning to compensate for the fees but I guess they won't do that for now.
Making Sense
1 ... 23242526272829 ... 34