Airlines In The Philippines II

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
666 messages Options
1 ... 26272829303132 ... 34
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo Strategy

XWB_flyer
I wonder when will PAL re-launched CEB-LAX again? I find it interesting that in 2019 they where gonna deployed the B777-300ER on that route rather then using smaller wide-body types like the A350-900 Personally I don't think its viable in the short term though maybe they could deployed one of the direct B77W flights from MNL to stop at CEB  before proceeding to LAX and back as an alternative to acquring either add A359 or B77W which may not be viable in the short term.

This is one of the reasons why I favour the B787-9 as it can both replaced the A330-300 and be used for long-haul expansion although there is a chance that Airbus will offer there A330neo at a temping price and the A359 could become viable for CEB in 4 years time?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo Strategy

Arianespace
Administrator
It has more to do with the cargo capacity rather than consideration to passengers. Otherwise it would have gone daily on A359. If it may interest you, in the past LAX-CEB flights, some LD7 are not taken out, meaning they get off the plane in MNL.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo strategy

Eurest
In reply to this post by Arianespace
The PR A333s won't make CAN-LHR if it carried freight, it will carry fuel instead of freight ex-stopover point.
I'm sorry if my further explanation was still confusing for you.

PBH rates for the airframe are only through 2022, when they'll revert to the old fee structures other than the T700&TXWB w/c are on a PBH contract with RR in the first place

For the B77W they reverted as of 1 Mar 2022 to a fixed market rate along with cash reserves for maintenance.
Their fees were based on utilization hours (PBH) from Sep 2021 to before 01 Mar 2022
The AFJ link you posted before states the same, if you are unable to get a subscription, their old articles are available as downloadable PDF docs w/links more easier accessible w/ Safari if you want to confirm.

PR widebody utilization are not through the roof, if they were, then they'll all be flying & not parked like RP-C8789
Am I dreaming when I look at FR24 and see R-C8780 arrive from HNL @ 1655 on 04Sep and the next flight is on 06Sep @ 06:40? What kind of through the roof utilization is that?
Even for the B77W, the best I've seen is 9 hours idle at MNL after a NA mission then leaving as the lunchtime 2nd LAX/SFO frequency.

B789 for PR152/153 would be rightsized as imagine they would have a pre-positioning MNL-CEB flight that would be easier to fill than a B77W MNL-CEB flight as I believe pre-CoViD A333s were easy to fill for PR on MNL-CEB or vice versa
QF's 789 fly a similar sector ESAD wise of 14500km @18T freight capacity, volumetric capacity would be 43T. Would be even better with a HGW variant even w/ a slight 2.5T MTOW bump. Your picks of A/C are uncannily spot-on.

SQ12 had bad reviews recently with connecting in NRT, it was said to so messy it was unusual given the renowned Japanese efficiency&orderliness.
I wholeheartedly agree with PR behind Asian peers in terms of product.
The A330 seems to be an important A/C for MH, TG, CL, SQ(previously), CX, OZ, KE as they do so well intra-Regional & OZ but PR seems to struggle on similar A333 routes
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo strategy

Arianespace
Administrator
Eurest wrote
PR widebody utilization are not through the roof, if they were, then they'll all be flying & not parked like RP-C8789
Am I dreaming when I look at FR24 and see R-C8780 arrive from HNL @ 1655 on 04Sep and the next flight is on 06Sep @ 06:40? What kind of through the roof utilization is that?
Did you even consider that 8780 requires maintenance in between long flights. If you look at FR24 a week before, it barely was on ground, having flown OZ, HNL, and intra asia in between. Just take a look and see what I mean.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/rp-c8780

I fondly remember JJB talking about the utilization rate of 744 circa 2006 or thereabouts that 12hr maintenance on ground is not even enough for a plane flying all week long on an ageing plane. And you are complaining about 9 hours on the ground. If you see the 777 rotation, its very tight. Look at their flights before, and you'll understand better. Remember they only have two newer 777 planes operating. The rest are old frames with plenty of maintenance issues.

You can argue to disagree, but I strongly believed it to be so.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo strategy

XWB_flyer
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Eurest
Eurest wrote
The A330 seems to be an important A/C for MH, TG, CL, SQ(previously), CX, OZ, KE as they do so well intra-Regional & OZ but PR seems to struggle on similar A333 routes
To be fair SQ, MH, CI, KE and OZ have there A330-300 configured in a two-class configuration which is suited for there requirement only CX has there A333 different configuration and a larger fleet and network then PR. Although pre-covid it seem PAL was able to managed having two configuration for there A330s. But now there numbers have been reduced its a bit challenging since some aircraft will be kept in reserve in case.


Eurest wrote
B789 for PR152/153 would be rightsized as imagine they would have a pre-positioning MNL-CEB flight that would be easier to fill than a B77W MNL-CEB flight as I believe pre-CoViD A333s were easy to fill for PR on MNL-CEB or vice versa
QF's 789 fly a similar sector ESAD wise of 14500km @18T freight capacity, volumetric capacity would be 43T. Would be even better with a HGW variant even w/ a slight 2.5T MTOW bump. Your picks of A/C are uncannily spot-on.
I wonder if it will have an effect on how many pax PAL hypothesized B789 I'm guessing either 290 in a two-class layout or between 275 to 285 in a three class layout. I was mostly basing it at BR which previously order 24 B787 Dreamliner (4 B789 20 B78X) though it has been thanks to COVID also LH ordering the B787 in 2019 to replace there older A333 and A343 group wide although its possible some A359 will end up with LX? Although recently with the order book of the B787 growing (CI recently choose the B787-9 to replace there A330-300), I'm starting to doubt will ever see the B787 being operated by PR along with the A350!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

PR's midsize widebody

Eurest
Tbf, the A333s as well were bought by different owners who had a vastly different idea on running the airline.
Had the Boeing proposal prospered, PR might have been in a better fiscal position with the trip cost advantage of the B788s esp. during CoViD;
 with the marketing prestige of the B748i earlier than having to wait for 2018 for the A359's

As for the B789, Charleston was 14/mo in 2019, and even if they eventually become the sole Dreamliner production line as previously planned, the recent FAA trouble they went through also made them more efficient.
Probably could see them go to 16 or 17/mo in 2024, the key is that even for this year, lessors have unplaced a/c
As for config, Boeing range isn't the same as Airbus range, customer's are guaranteed to get the specified range for a typical configuration.
290 pax @ 7635nmi seems to be the typical config that would cover MNL-JFK, unless they want more payload, but the MTOW bump seems to be close so Boeing might want to really show the CASM advantage over the 295 pax A359 with as close a seat count as possible
VN's 2015 build 274pax 3class B789s were guaranteed to fly the 16:40 westbound sector for SFO-SGN, so 2.5 tons in MTOW bump would be considerable.
What's interesting though is that TG, even with their A359s, initially wanted to lease add'l 2 B789s despite operating 11 A359s and only 2 B789s
SAS, a Seabury bankruptcy client with a 300pax config A359 (2.2yrs avg. fleet age, less than the purported CASM sweet spot of 313-330 for the A359)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PR's midsize widebody

XWB_flyer

Reading at Arianespace post makes me wonder how much those PAL Management really care about CASM/RPVM from OEM. I do think PAL has there own metric for CASM/RPVM and could be the reason why they went with the A350-900 over the B787-9 with a combination of Pax and freight capacity being considered on them choosing the former rather then the latter.

Also I suspected they also considered the possibility of adding seats like the proposed 313 with the A350-900 which I doubt would have been possible had they went with the B787-9 with payload restriction both in pax and freight even with the incremental improvement Boeing have made with the B787 Dreamliner
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PR's midsize widebody

Eurest
Only each airline truly knows their CASM, as airlines don't generally disclose their direct operating costs.
Both manufacturers can only offer an answer to the RFP that an airline sends out.

If Boeing is expecting HGW for the Dreamliners, Airbus will also launch in 2024 a new production standard for the A350.
The 2020 standard  involved the A35k higher winglets for the A359, ICE improvements like the new rear galley, electrification of previously hydraulic systems & other weight reductions.
Further weight reduction slated for adoption soon would net around 1.2T lesser weight via switching to electronic dimmers instead of shades, a new rear pressure bulkhead.
The front changes to gain the 35" of cabin length involve pushing the flight deck wall 5" forward, and new forward cabin monuments & forward crew rest entry.
Further cabin floor space is increased via an even bigger ICE rear galley(or a V-one, +6 trolleys ea side), also a bigger front galley. This allows for mid-cabin galleys to be deleted in favor of seats
And of course new fuselage production & fusing allowing the 4" sculped interior.

Even if the B789 will see an upgrade, so will the A350s, perhaps a 2024 A359 for PR @ 283T w/ 325 seats
What's important IMO is an airline offering the best possible product for its customers given that it has a virtual monopoly given the cost advantage of PR over Int'l peers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo strategy

frequentflier
In reply to this post by Eurest
Is there a reason why they always use 8780 as sub for PR112? Is it specially configured or it just so happens that it’s always the available aircraft?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hybrid Cargo strategy

peterpiloto
8783, and 82 were also used in the 112/113 run. Though 8780 is the most frequent.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

Eurest
In reply to this post by frequentflier
I can only assume its to add Flight Cycles & Flight Hours
The airframe had been parked quite recently as August

Though RP-C3508 has been back after a 2week MV, a few of the the B77W (RP-C7772, RP-C7777) seem to be on MVs as well.
I've been told even RC-C7774 (09.08/09.2022) is back from the desert for post storage maintenance @ LTP?
Can someone confirm (Also check for the 5th 309/9th A333 RP-C8789)? Arianespace did mention a while back that all 10 B77W would be flying for December.
Supposedly, PR B77W's when @ full utilization was usually 44FCs/mo

The 12th BA A380 left LTP yesterday, so there is space at the hangars
Winter looks BUSY for MNL. Even DL is in trouble as KE is no longer allowing DL to add bookings (might have capped their allotment) for the ICN-MNL-ICN codeshare.
Surprise KE B744/B748i for MNL ops perhaps? Their B773 might not be big enough

BR adding frequency to MNL just when the Taiwanese Gov't had removed Visa-Free entry is interesting
CI & BR taking CX marketshare?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

frequentflier
Does this mean 7781 is returning as well? I thought it was returned to the lessor.

Also, the Visa Free entry of Filipinos to Taiwan stays. This was clarified by MECO.

https://globalnation.inquirer.net/206698/fwd-visa-free-entry-for-filipinos-bound-for-taiwan-remains-meco
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

Arianespace
Administrator
Did you know that visa regime with Taiwan is tied to seat allocations? Not much Filipinos are going there for tourism except work. The rest are transit to North America. That is the reason why you see multiple heavy for their carriers at MNL while we sent a puny little bus. Remove that and you'll see their puny plane here. I've transited TPE and like Emirates for EU, most passengers they have are Filipinos going across the pond. It surely did hurt them when this was strictly implemented in 2000 to PR delight.

By the way, 8780 is a fully owned PAL plane. Perhaps that might get some of the answers.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

XWB_flyer
I wonder how many A330-300 those PAL own?

Are there plans to transfer them to GAP in the future once PR has acquired there A330-300 replacement in the coming years?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

seven13
In reply to this post by Arianespace
PR longhaul flights are a mess these past few days. PR112 is going to be operated by A330 on some days this September. PR104 is often rescheduled as PR5104. PR126 and PR118 will be operated by B777 on some days.

This frequent delays and reschedule will surely affect their service reliability. It’s extremely difficult when PR downgrades from B777 to A330. Imagine 42J going down to 18J, but hard product wise, it’s an upgrade from the B777 to the A330.

PR119 that arrived this morning went nonstop from YYZ flying westward.

——————————
I’m curious if anyone here is knowledgeable on PR’s current cargo ops? Like how well is PR doing? How bullish is PR on this side of the business and are they foreseeing the cargo hybrid ops to be a medium to longterm business?

Aside from CAN, SZX and PVG; SGN also, would anybody have an idea from which other station(s) PR is able to pick up a significant amount of cargo for its hybrid ops? I’m guessing PNH since it was one of the newer routes pre-Covid yet they didn't drop the route when PR ramped up its flight.

CGK has been getting good loads, I’m guessing mostly transit pax. PR has been utilizing widebody on some days. And checking the timetable, it’s adding 3x/week day flight. KUL is also increasing to 10x a week with 3 redeye flights soon.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

Eurest
In reply to this post by frequentflier
PR retained the lease for RP-C7781 from Avation during C11 w/ newer terms, still slated to leave PR's fleet Q4 2027
Curiously, on the same day 7781 was flown to Marana, Avation disclosed publicly that it had entered into a Payment Plan Agreement worth 25.9M$ @ 5.5%/yr w/payments starting Jan '23 for 24mos w/ an airline lessee
Could be related or could not be.
The fact that it left to MRJ using PR's callsign & flight # and was never de-registered indicates it will rejoin the fleet once demand necessitates.
It was probably flown for storage as forecast demand indicated they would not need it for longer than 6 mos, otherwise it would just have been parked (w/c would have a cheaper & different maintenance program)

The Taiwan visa-free for PH is confusing, the Foreign Ministry site list add'l requirements, and reporting/commuting flight crew from PH are still banned.
It might be a soft-ban, meant to confuse to dissuade.
I remember transiting w/ CI to MNL in 1990 from LAX; overnight in a Hotel, buffet breakfast in the morning before continuing to MNL via a 747SP. Seemed profitable even then for RoC carriers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RP-C8780 as PR112/113

Arianespace
Administrator
Not to nitpicked Eurest but just to correct information which i think is wrong, 7781 is intrepid, the voyager kind. 7782 is Avation. You are correct however on the PBH of the avation expiring March 2022, and about its termination date. Knowing PAL, it is uncommon for them not to extend leases.

For everyone's knowledge, Avation PLC bought equity in PAL, both in shares and bonds, meaning the are actually part owners of PAL now.

As to some question about PAL A330 ownership, they were answered already in this forum. Perhaps you just never bother to read. You'll find them in page 24.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Rebrand Premium Economy to Comfort Class for select aircraft

XWB_flyer
Not sure if this has been confirmed but PAL
has recently rebranded there Domestic Premium Economy to "Comfort Class" or "Economy Comfort is slowly following the foot step of KLM and Big US3 Carriers by offering an extra-legroom economy with 34" seat pitch while regular economy is 30-31" I have a feeling PAL will eventually retrofit there A321neo, Tri-class A330-300, A350-900 and B777-300ER in the not to distant future just hoping they will maintain a minimum of 31 to 32" for regular economy!

https://mondortiz.com/pal-launches-its-domestic-comfort-class-in-flight-service/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL Rebrand Premium Economy to Comfort Class for select aircraft

Evodesire
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

PAL Restructuring

Arianespace
Administrator
I was telling you all folks here about this in July (page 22), in reply to Eurest about the 2 777s.

Company insider said they are about to do that by 4th quarter as they look into their forward booking fast filling up. They intend to cover pre-pandemic flight to LAX and SFO of 14pw and 11pw by winter...
Look at their winter timetable now.
Making Sense
1 ... 26272829303132 ... 34