Airlines In The Philippines III

[Gustavo J Oppenheimer]

next week is the Philippine Aviation Summit, i wonder what PR would announce given that they are co-s
Presentors for this year's edition, 5J was last year's co-presentor

[Arianespace]

Solblanc wrote

If PAL just needs a medium-haul plane, the 33N is there. No need to splurge on 787s or negotiating with lessors for 787 slots.

If the point is for the medium-haul planes to be able to serve as a stopgap when long-haul planes go tech, like when we see the 333s go to LAX, well, I guess it would be nice to have 787s.

The point is PAL needs a medium size plane capable of doing long haul as well as medium haul. Perhaps brought by lessons learned during the A330 foray in LAX. But most of all, to address also fleet requirement for its CEB hub. Does it make sense now?

That being said, with 9-12 A35Ks, 2 A359s, and 10 77Ws, do they really need any more long-haul capacity?

In the short-term, they should at the very least make sure that SYD/MEL don’t get a 9-abreast plane. Perhaps a few XLRs might help PR for that.

Assuming PAL decides for reconfiguration of the 77w fleet, it would be there only for extended stay of additional 6 years, or until 2032, at least for the 2012 delivered planes, similar to CPA extension. Otherwise, they would be replace one by one once the 35k arrives. Still, midsized plane needs replacement by 2031, whether they like it or not, due to escalating maintenance cost that would be brought by wear and tear.

Either way, order is forthcoming to address this impending fleet blackhole.

[Solblanc]

On a different note, can someone explain who will be using this PTV?

[seven13]

Solblanc wrote

On a different note, can someone explain who will be using this PTV?

It can be used as a spare piece just in case one of the ife screen conks out

[seven13]

I’ve been thinking, since PR is not known for being generous with its seating capacity, what are your thoughts on Collins Aerospace Apex seats? It’s not the best J seats in the market but PR can still have a denser J with 2-2-2 but all pax will have direct access.

[AnonBoy]

Yeah, those probably are spare screens. The Tri-class A330's are equipped with those spares, you can find them in the rearmost seats of PECY for PECY screens, and rearmost of ECY for ECY screens. The screen unlock keys are located up front, near the pursers station.

[Solblanc]

seven13 wrote

I’ve been thinking, since PR is not known for being generous with its seating capacity, what are your thoughts on Collins Aerospace Apex seats? It’s not the best J seats in the market but PR can still have a denser J with 2-2-2 but all pax will have direct access.

Apex is B/E Aerospace. Collins currently uses the Elements platform for 1-2-1. The A350 mock-up showed Collins Elements. Which product were you referring to?

[seven13]

Solblanc wrote

seven13 wrote

I’ve been thinking, since PR is not known for being generous with its seating capacity, what are your thoughts on Collins Aerospace Apex seats? It’s not the best J seats in the market but PR can still have a denser J with 2-2-2 but all pax will have direct access.

Apex is B/E Aerospace. Collins currently uses the Elements platform for 1-2-1. The A350 mock-up showed Collins Elements. Which product were you referring to?

I mean the Apex suites is a good choice for bcl seats for the A330 compared to the current biclass business class seats. I wished RSA could have at leased chosen it over the current ones on the biclass. Same seat count and layout of 2-2-2. I guess RSA was really keen on getting the lightest product to make the plane light and burn less fuel.1

[Solblanc]

seven13 wrote

Solblanc wrote

seven13 wrote

I’ve been thinking, since PR is not known for being generous with its seating capacity, what are your thoughts on Collins Aerospace Apex seats? It’s not the best J seats in the market but PR can still have a denser J with 2-2-2 but all pax will have direct access.

Apex is B/E Aerospace. Collins currently uses the Elements platform for 1-2-1. The A350 mock-up showed Collins Elements. Which product were you referring to?

I mean the Apex suites is a good choice for bcl seats for the A330 compared to the current biclass business class seats. I wished RSA could have at leased chosen it over the current ones on the biclass. Same seat count and layout of 2-2-2. I guess RSA was really keen on getting the lightest product to make the plane light and burn less fuel.1

B/E Aerospace Apex is too space-intensive. The stagger eats up too much space and even the non-staggered centre seats eat 75” pitch. Look at Oman Air’s A330-300 https://www.aerolopa.com/wy-333-1 and you can only fit 24 seats. Compare that to Cathay’s A330 which fits 28 seats in the same space using reverse herringbone cirrus https://www.aerolopa.com/cx-33j

JAL and KE are also phasing out Apex suites for denser solutions. At the end of the day, it’s a nice product, but not space-efficient

Runway girl also did a feature on optimares aria (which hasn’t been taken up by any carrier so far) but the chart also shows how different seats fit between doors 1 and 2 of select widebody aircraft: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-layout-options-%E2%80%94-and-seat-density-%E2%80%94-are-truly-intriguing.-Image-John-Walton.jpg

[Evodesire]

<quote author="Arianespace">

Solblanc wrote

If PAL just needs a medium-haul plane, the 33N is there. No need to splurge on 787s or negotiating with lessors for 787 slots.

If the point is for the medium-haul planes to be able to serve as a stopgap when long-haul planes go tech, like when we see the 333s go to LAX, well, I guess it would be nice to have 787s.

The point is PAL needs a medium size plane capable of doing long haul as well as medium haul. Perhaps brought by lessons learned during the A330 foray in LAX. But most of all, to address also fleet requirement for its CEB hub. Does it make sense now?

That being said, with 9-12 A35Ks, 2 A359s, and 10 77Ws, do they really need any more long-haul capacity?

In the short-term, they should at the very least make sure that SYD/MEL don’t get a 9-abreast plane. Perhaps a few XLRs might help PR for that.

Just a few questions about the next PAL order:
1. Will PAL still retrofit those SMC/ME A330s or they would rather just order replacements instead? Or will they be doing both?

2. PAL currently has two A350-900s and there are rumors of PAL adding more either by getting back those LH A350s or maybe leasing or getting additional ones. That being said, wouldn't there be like some redundancy as the 787-9s are like a direct counterpart of the A350-900? Wouldn't the 787-10 be a more sound aircraft especially that it has better payload than the A339N? I do see other airlines use 787-10s for 11 hour flights.

3. Aren't A350-900s supposed to be a more sound choice if PAL wants to launch long flights from other hubs given that this provides a more streamlined fleet of two variants of the A350 operating plus one variant of the 787?

[filipinoavgeek]

Several airlines have both the 787-9 and the A350-900 so while on paper they may seem redundant, they actually have somewhat different characteristics and niches. I now doubt that PR is going to ever get 787s, but that doesn't mean that the 787 and the A350 can't co-exist.

[Arianespace]

Evodesire wrote

Just a few questions about the next PAL order:
1. Will PAL still retrofit those SMC/ME A330s or they would rather just order replacements instead? Or will they be doing both?

At the onset, they are already doing retrofit for 2 of the A330s that are already paid. If that is an indication of the things to come.

2. PAL currently has two A350-900s and there are rumors of PAL adding more either by getting back those LH A350s or maybe leasing or getting additional ones. That being said, wouldn't there be like some redundancy as the 787-9s are like a direct counterpart of the A350-900? Wouldn't the 787-10 be a more sound aircraft especially that it has better payload than the A339N? I do see other airlines use 787-10s for 11 hour flights.

No. They are not the same bird. The B78x is more like the A359 in size. The difference they have is the latter can fly 14 hours block time while the former can't. RANGE DOES MATTER in transpacific flights.

The B789 is similar to the A339 in size. The difference they have is the former can fly 14 block hours while the latter cant.

Between the A359 and the B789, the former is bigger than the latter, but the latter carries more payload for a given 14 hour block time.

And so they are not the same bird, contrary to some assumptions here.  

3. Aren't A350-900s supposed to be a more sound choice if PAL wants to launch long flights from other hubs given that this provides a more streamlined fleet of two variants of the A350 operating plus one variant of the 787?

If you have thinner traffic, you can't fill the A359, but you can fill the B789 as it is the smaller plane.

filipinoavgeek wrote

Several airlines have both the 787-9 and the A350-900 so while on paper they may seem redundant, they actually have somewhat different characteristics and niches. I now doubt that PR is going to ever get 787s, but that doesn't mean that the 787 and the A350 can't co-exist.

The main difference they have is their size. A359 is larger, higher-capacity widebody aircraft designed for longer-haul routes with a higher passenger count at 315, while the B789 is smaller at 290 passenger count for transpacific, but offers better efficiency for its higher payload, and a wider operational range, making it more versatile for airlines in medium haul and long haul. In short, the B789 carries more payload than A359, ie between LAX-MNL, assuming they have same number of passengers. For their CEB hub, the economics of B789 is no brainer as it is easier to fill a smaller plane. It is $20 million cheaper too! PAL is known to vote with its pockets.

[JNC03]

787 and A330neo can co exist tho in PAL's fleet

I remember PAL's plan to order more planes last year but not Cebu Pacific level order

[Solblanc]

If PAL went 10-abreast for the A35K, they’ll go 10-abreast for the A359. That brings the seat count up to 350+ seats similar to the 9-abreast A330. But it’ll be able to do west coast and Europe.

In any case, doesn’t really matter what PAL gets, as long as they get something. Whatever it is, just make the 9-abreast 330s go away.

[Arianespace]

Their version of the 259 is not capable of reaching the west coast if it were to have 350 or more seats. The 280t version perhaps.

[poipoi]

Why not lease back the A350-900s from Lufthansa once their lease ends for Middle East or future European routes? It could be a cheaper option. Then, order about six to eight Boeing 787-9 aircraft for trans-Pacific flights or for use during low-demand seasons to the United States, replacing PAL’s aging A330 fleet with a mix of A350-900 and 787-9 aircraft.

[Solblanc]

Standard A359 MTOW these days is 283t. 5t more than the 278t A359s of PAL that fly to the east coast and 3t more than the SQ ULR. The continuous improvements just keep coming. West coast should be doable most of the year filled to the brim. But it’ll have less cargo potential as the hold will go to just bags. Then again, 368 passengers on an A330 to the Mideast seems to be doing just fine.

If you wanted to grow Cebu, that might be a lot of capacity though. 789 would be better. But if you wanted to maximize NAIA slots as NMIA doesn’t even have a runway yet, it might be a good choice.

[Evodesire]

Arianespace wrote

At the onset, they are already doing retrofit for 2 of the A330s that are already paid. If that is an indication of the things to come.

Aren't the two A330s retrofitted already in which they were densified, RP-C8771 and RP-C8772?

[Evodesire]

Solblanc wrote

If PAL went 10-abreast for the A35K, they’ll go 10-abreast for the A359. That brings the seat count up to 350+ seats similar to the 9-abreast A330. But it’ll be able to do west coast and Europe.

In any case, doesn’t really matter what PAL gets, as long as they get something. Whatever it is, just make the 9-abreast 330s go away.

PAL's A35K is an improved version with a wider cabin by 4 inches, compared to the current A359 in the fleet. That is why they went 3-4-3 in the A35K's Y class.

[Arianespace]

poipoi wrote

Why not lease back the A350-900s from Lufthansa

Because the lease are tied to debts owed by PAL to LTP during rehab. That is guaranteed income on their part to guarantee payments.

The answer is the same to post in May this year

Arianespace wrote

PAL is making money leasing planes. Problem with that arrangement is you cannot use the planes when you need them. Because they are used by other airlines which pays them.

Like what I said 3 years ago, the lease to LH was for the repayments of $80 million to LTP, a subsidiary of LH. In effect, LH is helping PAL pay off its debt.

I hope that clears your head.

Solblanc wrote

If you wanted to grow Cebu, that might be a lot of capacity though. 789 would be better. But if you wanted to maximize NAIA slots as NMIA doesn’t even have a runway yet, it might be a good choice.

MNL is already covered by 35K, which is overkill for CEB, as PAL intends to open LAX, and SFO soon. Also, the smaller 789 plane intends to cover LHR which again is too big for the 359, density wise.

Evodesire wrote

Aren't the two A330s retrofitted already in which they were densified, RP-C8771 and RP-C8772?

I think they are not yet completed as the next batch are not yet announced.