Airlines In The Philippines IV

[Solblanc]

airline_builder wrote

Solblanc wrote

airline_builder wrote

ewh1 wrote

Not to argue but technically, Emirates introduced 3x4x3 from the original 3x3x3 layout back in the late 90s early 2000s.  At one point B777s were even 2x5x2, and I remember riding on one from United.

Yes, that being a fact, but the architectural cabin panels based on its fuselage exhibits less curvature as compared to the A350, making the 3-4-3 config on the B777 give the psychology of space still.

Yeah, when EK first introduced 3-4-3 on the 777, the reactions were the same. "Too narrow!" "777 was designed for 9-abreast!" but eventually, almost every other airline followed their lead.

Same with the 787. Marketed as 8-abreast, but only JAL and ANA fly 8-abreast 787s

The actual reality is that airfares are not really rising relative to inflation. Air travel is getting cheaper. And it's thanks to stuff like this.

Ten years from now, we're gonna see more 10-abreast A350s. It's gonna be sad for the economy class passenger. But good for the bottom line.

As much as we want to criticize PAL, they've still been making money flying those awful 9-abreast A330s around. That horrible hard product didn't do anything to affect their profits. So they'll dry their tears with dollar bills.

Personally, I don't fly PAL. I don't have skin in the game. But apparently, enough people do for them to still make money as a "full service carrier"

Agree - but then again

"The Boeing 777 series has a wider cabin than the Airbus A350, featuring an internal width of approximately \(19.5\text{–}19.6\) feet (\(5.96\text{–}6.2\text{\ m}\)) compared to the A350's \(18.4\text{–}18.9\) feet (\(5.61\text{–}5.71\text{\ m}\)). While the 777 is designed for 10-abreast seating, the narrower A350 is typically configured 9-abreast, offering more passenger comfort despite having less overall space."

This is the whole point when I was reiterating - what is made for what.

The 747 once upon a time was a 9-abreast aircraft. Standards change over time. In all classes.

To make up for seats getting smaller and smaller, airlines the world over have started offering a taste of what used to be in the Premium Economy cabin. There is always a solution for those that don't want a tight economy seat: don't fly economy. And Premium Economy is a relatively affordable way to not have to deal with those gripes.

[airline_builder]

Solblanc wrote

airline_builder wrote

Solblanc wrote

airline_builder wrote

ewh1 wrote

Not to argue but technically, Emirates introduced 3x4x3 from the original 3x3x3 layout back in the late 90s early 2000s.  At one point B777s were even 2x5x2, and I remember riding on one from United.

Yes, that being a fact, but the architectural cabin panels based on its fuselage exhibits less curvature as compared to the A350, making the 3-4-3 config on the B777 give the psychology of space still.

Yeah, when EK first introduced 3-4-3 on the 777, the reactions were the same. "Too narrow!" "777 was designed for 9-abreast!" but eventually, almost every other airline followed their lead.

Same with the 787. Marketed as 8-abreast, but only JAL and ANA fly 8-abreast 787s

The actual reality is that airfares are not really rising relative to inflation. Air travel is getting cheaper. And it's thanks to stuff like this.

Ten years from now, we're gonna see more 10-abreast A350s. It's gonna be sad for the economy class passenger. But good for the bottom line.

As much as we want to criticize PAL, they've still been making money flying those awful 9-abreast A330s around. That horrible hard product didn't do anything to affect their profits. So they'll dry their tears with dollar bills.

Personally, I don't fly PAL. I don't have skin in the game. But apparently, enough people do for them to still make money as a "full service carrier"

Agree - but then again

"The Boeing 777 series has a wider cabin than the Airbus A350, featuring an internal width of approximately \(19.5\text{–}19.6\) feet (\(5.96\text{–}6.2\text{\ m}\)) compared to the A350's \(18.4\text{–}18.9\) feet (\(5.61\text{–}5.71\text{\ m}\)). While the 777 is designed for 10-abreast seating, the narrower A350 is typically configured 9-abreast, offering more passenger comfort despite having less overall space."

This is the whole point when I was reiterating - what is made for what.

The 747 once upon a time was a 9-abreast aircraft. Standards change over time. In all classes.

To make up for seats getting smaller and smaller, airlines the world over have started offering a taste of what used to be in the Premium Economy cabin. There is always a solution for those that don't want a tight economy seat: don't fly economy. And Premium Economy is a relatively affordable way to not have to deal with those gripes.

Eventually as a given, the 10 abreast on the A35K of Philippine Airlines will not result to passengers being accustomed and realize it is comfortable because one makes do with what is on hand.

on the other hand, we have to give to it Boeing aircraft (i.e.B747 or the B777) no matter how one justifies how they cramp up the cabin and even shrunk the seat back width - we are speaking of the NOW - again from the physical cabin width is the base of this conversation.

[Solblanc]

airline_builder wrote

Solblanc wrote

airline_builder wrote

Solblanc wrote

airline_builder wrote

ewh1 wrote

Not to argue but technically, Emirates introduced 3x4x3 from the original 3x3x3 layout back in the late 90s early 2000s.  At one point B777s were even 2x5x2, and I remember riding on one from United.

Yes, that being a fact, but the architectural cabin panels based on its fuselage exhibits less curvature as compared to the A350, making the 3-4-3 config on the B777 give the psychology of space still.

Yeah, when EK first introduced 3-4-3 on the 777, the reactions were the same. "Too narrow!" "777 was designed for 9-abreast!" but eventually, almost every other airline followed their lead.

Same with the 787. Marketed as 8-abreast, but only JAL and ANA fly 8-abreast 787s

The actual reality is that airfares are not really rising relative to inflation. Air travel is getting cheaper. And it's thanks to stuff like this.

Ten years from now, we're gonna see more 10-abreast A350s. It's gonna be sad for the economy class passenger. But good for the bottom line.

As much as we want to criticize PAL, they've still been making money flying those awful 9-abreast A330s around. That horrible hard product didn't do anything to affect their profits. So they'll dry their tears with dollar bills.

Personally, I don't fly PAL. I don't have skin in the game. But apparently, enough people do for them to still make money as a "full service carrier"

Agree - but then again

"The Boeing 777 series has a wider cabin than the Airbus A350, featuring an internal width of approximately \(19.5\text{–}19.6\) feet (\(5.96\text{–}6.2\text{\ m}\)) compared to the A350's \(18.4\text{–}18.9\) feet (\(5.61\text{–}5.71\text{\ m}\)). While the 777 is designed for 10-abreast seating, the narrower A350 is typically configured 9-abreast, offering more passenger comfort despite having less overall space."

This is the whole point when I was reiterating - what is made for what.

The 747 once upon a time was a 9-abreast aircraft. Standards change over time. In all classes.

To make up for seats getting smaller and smaller, airlines the world over have started offering a taste of what used to be in the Premium Economy cabin. There is always a solution for those that don't want a tight economy seat: don't fly economy. And Premium Economy is a relatively affordable way to not have to deal with those gripes.

Eventually as a given, the 10 abreast on the A35K of Philippine Airlines will not result to passengers being accustomed and realize it is comfortable because one makes do with what is on hand.

on the other hand, we have to give to it Boeing aircraft (i.e.B747 or the B777) no matter how one justifies how they cramp up the cabin and even shrunk the seat back width - we are speaking of the NOW - again from the physical cabin width is the base of this conversation.

We are going in circles. Anyway, time will tell if 16.9/17 flat seats become the norm or not. Because I'm sure there will be an airline out there that will somehow justify 11-abreast on the 777X with their even wider cabin.

And time will also tell if people will stop booking PAL en masse in economy because of the tight seating.

[ewh1]

airline_builder wrote

Agree - but then again

"The Boeing 777 series has a wider cabin than the Airbus A350, featuring an internal width of approximately \(19.5\text{–}19.6\) feet (\(5.96\text{–}6.2\text{\ m}\)) compared to the A350's \(18.4\text{–}18.9\) feet (\(5.61\text{–}5.71\text{\ m}\)). While the 777 is designed for 10-abreast seating, the narrower A350 is typically configured 9-abreast, offering more passenger comfort despite having less overall space."

This is the whole point when I was reiterating - what is made for what.

Yes its unfortunate that ultimately its narrower than a B777 but given the context of aircraft availability at the time they ordered, had the B777X been an option would that have been the choice PAL made instead?
There weren't too many options available for a 1:1 replacement when they ordered, so I'll give them props for finding a creative solution and Airbus for creating a solution.

Maybe this is my optimism but I feel like, PAL will be growing a lot larger in the next few years and in the grand scheme of things, they might also order A350-1000's with a more traditional seat config in addition to the current config.

I do think in the next 10 years, Manila will become more of a transit hub than it currently is, especially with Bulacan coming online. Compared to North Asia, There isn't an airline in SEA that has a lower cost base that operates as many non-stop flights to NA than PAL. With better infrastructure, PAL can offer bargain basement fares to Asia and Oceania while still offering enough capacity for its traditional O&D destinations,  so I'm hopeful we will see more A350s and potentially a decent fleet of B787s in the near future.

I think people are less picky than we assume, and as long as theres capacity, good prices, and yes to a slightly lower extent, good service/comfort and a good reputation of the hub/airline, they will choose that option over the usual competitors.

[airline_builder]

ewh1 wrote

airline_builder wrote

Agree - but then again

"The Boeing 777 series has a wider cabin than the Airbus A350, featuring an internal width of approximately \(19.5\text{–}19.6\) feet (\(5.96\text{–}6.2\text{\ m}\)) compared to the A350's \(18.4\text{–}18.9\) feet (\(5.61\text{–}5.71\text{\ m}\)). While the 777 is designed for 10-abreast seating, the narrower A350 is typically configured 9-abreast, offering more passenger comfort despite having less overall space."

This is the whole point when I was reiterating - what is made for what.

Yes its unfortunate that ultimately its narrower than a B777 but given the context of aircraft availability at the time they ordered, had the B777X been an option would that have been the choice PAL made instead?
There weren't too many options available for a 1:1 replacement when they ordered, so I'll give them props for finding a creative solution and Airbus for creating a solution.

Maybe this is my optimism but I feel like, PAL will be growing a lot larger in the next few years and in the grand scheme of things, they might also order A350-1000's with a more traditional seat config in addition to the current config.

I do think in the next 10 years, Manila will become more of a transit hub than it currently is, especially with Bulacan coming online. Compared to North Asia, There isn't an airline in SEA that has a lower cost base that operates as many non-stop flights to NA than PAL. With better infrastructure, PAL can offer bargain basement fares to Asia and Oceania while still offering enough capacity for its traditional O&D destinations,  so I'm hopeful we will see more A350s and potentially a decent fleet of B787s in the near future.

I think people are less picky than we assume, and as long as theres capacity, good prices, and yes to a slightly lower extent, good service/comfort and a good reputation of the hub/airline, they will choose that option over the usual competitors.

Finally somebody got my point. So simple right?

[Arianespace]

airline_builder wrote

The reality is, then again, the A350 no matter what cabin enhancement being introduced was designed to be in the 3-3-3 to compete with the B787 3-3-3 thus the XWB tagline was coined. A direct hit on their direct competitor. People insist otherwise as being a B777 competitor? Nope - wrong. Just recently with the A350-1000 just so vs the B773W.

One cannot compare the B777 cabin abreast configuration because it was and will always be as originally conceptualized as a 10 abreast cabin all space factored in prior to after thoughts like what Airbus did with their 3-4-3 on a 3-3-3 cabin.

Let us quit apologizing for the wrong move that PAL made on their economy configuration with the A35K. Let us just call spade a spade.

Hope PAL executives seriously assess their decision pragmatically post introduction for at least 6 months ops then that would be enough sample survey population.

This is correct. You can actually find that argument in this book.


The A350 project was conceived as answer to the B7e7 project of Boeing. Major airlines, particularly SIA did not like the idea of just improving the A330 design to compete with the 7e7, which of course was developed to replace the B767s developed to compete with the A300, which happen to seat 8 abreast in coach. The 9 abreast was an afterthought and airlines were not happy about Boeing forcing it through its throat. So Airbus responded with an XWB project, which literally meant what it said to accommodate the 9th seat, comfortably. Which is exactly the reason why A359 is the most comfortable 9 abreast configuration plane.

The 777 project was derived from the B767-x project with fuselage developed from McDonnell Douglas MD-11. But major airlines were not happy with its development so Boeing revamped the project with the airlines input. The plane was designed to fit 10 abreast but airlines who requested it prefer it to have it at 9 abreast. Quite an interesting story. The airlines which participated in that project did have their original 777 at 9 abreast.

Before anything is lost in the translation, PAL is the first "Full Service Carrier" to operate the A350 at 10 abreast configuration. This far, no airline of the same respected calibre adopted to the same configuration.

[Gustavo J Oppenheimer]

I was wondering if PR and 5J will cancel their flights to the Middle East in light of the escalating situation there. Imho they should announce it early

Several carriers (mostly from Europe and from India) have made similar announcements

[romantic_guy08]

WARNING!!! YUCKY VIDEO AHEAD

INSIDER INFO | Oh sh*t! Crew reports toilet hell on PAL flight from LA

Industry talk is heating up over a recent Philippine Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Manila, after what crew members describe as an operational and leadership breakdown that never reached passengers… but has now reached the company’s union.
According to multiple crew accounts, during a PR113 flight last week, the flushing mechanism in all lavatories of the Boeing 777 reportedly failed mid-flight. Note: Not just one or two lavatories, but ALL of them decided to stop working at once.

With Guam roughly six hours away at the time, an expensive flight diversion was considered but ultimately rejected. The aircraft continued on to Manila and landed safely, completing the long-haul flight without delay and without formal passenger complaints.

What unfolded onboard, however, is now being questioned within aviation and labor circles. Crew members say they were instructed to manually scoop human waste and dispose of it into the adjacent lavatory basins, so that passengers could continue using the toilets.

Sources familiar with airline procedures say there is no global aviation protocol that supports such an approach, raising concerns over biosecurity, sanitation, and occupational safety.

[Arianespace]

That plane is inside the LTP hangar for days now. It seems there is more to it than meets the eye.

[romantic_guy08]

Arianespace wrote

That plane is inside the LTP hangar for days now. It seems there is more to it than meets the eye.

is this 76 or 73?

[peterpiloto]

7776 has been out of the fleet since 2024.

[Arianespace]

The plane that is twin to it, that is also famously notorious, for its age.

[peterpiloto]

Arianespace wrote

The plane that is twin to it, that is also famously notorious, for its age.

Ah uno! Remember taking her back in Jan 2017 PR105. Center Lavatories were inop.

[Arianespace]

romantic_guy08 wrote

According to multiple crew accounts, during a PR113 flight last week, the flushing mechanism in all lavatories of the Boeing 777 reportedly failed mid-flight. Note: Not just one or two lavatories, but ALL of them decided to stop working at once.

With Guam roughly six hours away at the time, an expensive flight diversion was considered but ultimately rejected. The aircraft continued on to Manila and landed safely, completing the long-haul flight without delay and without formal passenger complaints.

What unfolded onboard, however, is now being questioned within aviation and labor circles. Crew members say they were instructed to manually scoop human waste and dispose of it into the adjacent lavatory basins, so that passengers could continue using the toilets.

Sources familiar with airline procedures say there is no global aviation protocol that supports such an approach, raising concerns over biosecurity, sanitation, and occupational safety.

Appears to be a very much downplayed affair, according to PAL

“Philippine Airlines confirms that an inflight lavatory malfunction occurred on PR113 that departed Los Angeles January 11, 2026,” the airline said in a statement in response to a report by InsiderPH’s Insider Info column of Miguel Camus.

The carrier said the flight was prepared for a possible diversion, noting that “the Guam station [was] ready to receive the aircraft and support passengers and crew if needed.”

“After technical and operational assessment by the flight and cabin crew, the flight continued to Manila,” according to the flag carrier, which is currently upgrading its fleet with newer next-generation aircraft.

“Based on the crew’s final report, normal lavatory function was observed during final approach, and the flight was completed without further incident. We recognize that the situation caused inconvenience to our passengers and crew, and we appreciate their patience and understanding,” it added.

Philippine Airlines said it is coordinating with the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines as part of the review.

“Philippine Airlines acknowledges the professionalism and dedication of the flight and cabin crew in managing the situation in accordance with established procedures, with passenger welfare as the priority,” PAL said.

“The airline places the highest priority on the safety, health, and well-being of passengers and employees and is conducting an internal review to establish the full facts. It would be premature to comment on specific claims while this process is ongoing,” it added.
https://insiderph.com/pal-launches-internal-review-over-toilet-failure-on-los-angelesmanila-flight

That PR statement is gonna land you in the Guiness Book of World Records, as the first "self-healing lavatories" ever in recorded history.  Surely, aircraft manufacturers are lining up to buy its patent.

Funny how you amazingly brushes away the incident yet continue with the investigation. Isn't it already an inconsistent statement?

[Gustavo J Oppenheimer]

AirAsia is close to buying 100 A220 jets

If this is confirmed, we will have a new Airbus model operating in the Philippines in the foreseeable future

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-eyes-100-a220-order-airasia/

[filipinoavgeek]

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1312327690938340&set=a.655136649990784

CEB is teasing a new route from Clark, and their picture has an A330neo. Could it be CRK-DXB?

[Gustavo J Oppenheimer]

Hanoi, their post is 'fill in the blanks' type of graphic

[Solblanc]

Gustavo J Oppenheimer wrote

AirAsia is close to buying 100 A220 jets

If this is confirmed, we will have a new Airbus model operating in the Philippines in the foreseeable future

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-eyes-100-a220-order-airasia/

The A220 is a bit of a realignment indeed in a region where airports are congested and slots are valuable.

It may mean that they’re going to start developing new hubs. Although 5J has been able to do that solely with the A320 family.

It may also mean that the market is maturing and they have to temper their growth prospects. I have a feeling they’ll assign quite a few of those aircraft to their Philippine division to stop the bleeding.

[JNC03]

AirAsia PH dont have any neos from its parent company even additional A320ceo to fix the fleet shortage of the airline

Dont expect those A220s here first

[Arianespace]

According to industry sources, AirAsia PH is short by 2 planes. That is the reason why they are operating with frequently delayed flights. CAB already called their attention to addressed this matter as it has been operating like this for almost a year already. Goes to show where the airline is heading.