Airlines In The Philippines IV

[Arianespace]

On that note, PAL was supposed to get 4 GA77w but decided to get only 2. And the GA plane is more denser than PR so it worked perfectly well on YVR addressing excess capacity. Not when AC entered the market. On the market forces I was talking about, AC did field their B789 for YVR instead of their B77w following that logic. As PAL themselves predicted would happen in 2018. When lean season comes this is where A359 capacity comes in handy. As they are all needed in the western seabord of North America.

[filipinoavgeek]

Arianespace wrote

seven13 wrote

It is so sad that PR could only maintain a daily frequency to SFO and not do a double daily year round. Plus whenever there needs to be a flight disrupted, it is always SFO that gets the hit. Also, would you know if are there chances PR could increase YVR to double daily?

On the contrary. They were able to grow it to 10x a week pre-covid. Then chapter 11 came and they lost some of their long haul fleet. Thereafter, UAL took the excess traffic away and their front passengers too. Which by the way confirms the big SFO market that PAL misses to grow. All because the BOD refused to infused additional $100 million capital to addressed this concern. That should have restored the full 77w fleet, and two more frames to cover the 4 lost A359. That is when their North American schedules went kaput and A330 fly the big ocean. It is sad to see them catching up market position now. They were really not expecting UAL to pass through. Nine additional long haulers should fill up some routes for growth when they arrive starting this year. LAX is already announced. I'm sure SFO and YVR is not far behind to be serve by these birds. Sadly, they are far too big and too dense.

According to PAL erstwhile fleet planning I heard in 2018, this is where the B789 and the A359 comes in handy as it was meant to be the right sized aircraft when competition comes in because this is when traffic thins out due to market forces before growing again. The competition is here. And only the A359 was acquired by PAL.

So if it was not for the pandemic, PAL might be operating 787s by now?

[Solblanc]

filipinoavgeek wrote

Arianespace wrote

seven13 wrote

It is so sad that PR could only maintain a daily frequency to SFO and not do a double daily year round. Plus whenever there needs to be a flight disrupted, it is always SFO that gets the hit. Also, would you know if are there chances PR could increase YVR to double daily?

On the contrary. They were able to grow it to 10x a week pre-covid. Then chapter 11 came and they lost some of their long haul fleet. Thereafter, UAL took the excess traffic away and their front passengers too. Which by the way confirms the big SFO market that PAL misses to grow. All because the BOD refused to infused additional $100 million capital to addressed this concern. That should have restored the full 77w fleet, and two more frames to cover the 4 lost A359. That is when their North American schedules went kaput and A330 fly the big ocean. It is sad to see them catching up market position now. They were really not expecting UAL to pass through. Nine additional long haulers should fill up some routes for growth when they arrive starting this year. LAX is already announced. I'm sure SFO and YVR is not far behind to be serve by these birds. Sadly, they are far too big and too dense.

According to PAL erstwhile fleet planning I heard in 2018, this is where the B789 and the A359 comes in handy as it was meant to be the right sized aircraft when competition comes in because this is when traffic thins out due to market forces before growing again. The competition is here. And only the A359 was acquired by PAL.

So if it was not for the pandemic, PAL might be operating 787s by now?

Probably not. If it weren’t for the pandemic, PAL would still have all 6 A359s.

The A359s came into the fleet because Airbus gave a better deal and better delivery spots than the 787. PAL was seriously looking at the 787-9 at the time.

I’m curious as to why they jumped to A35K for the options. The 77Ws weren’t that old and still had life in them. Even though the 77W couldn’t do JFK both ways without restrictions, it’s not like JFK needs so much capacity anyways. With the existing 77W fleet and perhaps additional GA frames, they could’ve waited to get the A35K or even waited till the 777-9 had enough range to do LAX.

Anyway, what’s done is done. What we don’t know if the 3 A35K options will be exercised or converted to A359.

The 787-9 for PAL is truly the perfect plane for Europe and Cebu long-haul. Question is, are they willing to wait?

[kilohakdog]

Still hoping that PAL get back those 4 A359s leased to LH. It would definitely boost their NA ops as well as increasing capacity to Australia

[Arianespace]

That is correct as they opted to fly the bigger A359 instead of the smaller B789. Both planes were capable of flying the eastern seaboard. The difference between the two is you'll be earning revenue in 1 year time versus 3 years for the Boeing. In airliners world that is a long time if we consider the "airline profit cycle". And PAL wanted to fly JFK again the soonest so they bite the more expensive plane with the faster delivery time.

But it was not meant to be that way as PAL planned its future fleet with 77x and 789 as early as the 4th 77w arrival in 2012. Not what you see today.

PAL under RSA wanted to fly B789 in 2014 to replace the old A330 bought in 1995 only to be told by Boeing he can have one only in 2016. So RSA went back to Airbus which delivered to him a year later.

Exactly the same answer I posted in June last year

Arianespace wrote

Solblanc wrote
2) Airbus has always been aggressive in dangling a good deal in front of PAL. RSA wanted 787s, he got A333s. Then they wanted 789s for ULH but they got A350s. Now they want the 78X. Will Airbus counter with an offer that PAL can’t refuse?

This is a wrong premise. RSA got the A333 because Boeing could deliver the B787 only after 3 years of wait, while Airbus delivers in 1 year. That is the story why SMC got the 333. Straight from the horses mouth that is. It would have been a mixed 789s and 78x fleet.

A350 was an afterthought of not having the 787. This could have been the next SMC order in 2015 but RSA and LCT had falling out. Had it been bought, LT group would have difficulty buying out SMC. But PAL nevertheless acquired the 359 a year later after the split, while 35K is solely JJB decision in 2018. So the 35k is not decided by the new executive or the previous ones, but a product of a decision made 5 years ago.

That also answers Solblanc question now. The B787 issue resurfaced in 2023 when Stan made this announcement

JNC03 wrote
Chief executive Stanley Ng says the carrier is considering other changes to its fleet.

He states that the airline is “exploring options” to replace its A330-300s, of which it has 10, “in about three or four years’ time”.

The A350s will gradually replace Boeing 777-300ERs as they arrive over the course of 2025-27.

Ng says the addition of more A350s “makes sense”, and he is open to the possibility of A350 freighters, although he says the carrier is “quite new” to the concept of operating its own cargo aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/philippine-airlines-to-fit-10-abreast-seating-on-a350-1000s/153828.article

[seven13]

Arianespace wrote

On that note, PAL was supposed to get 4 GA77w but decided to get only 2. And the GA plane is more denser than PR so it worked perfectly well on YVR addressing excess capacity. Not when AC entered the market. On the market forces I was talking about, AC did field their B789 for YVR instead of their B77w following that logic. As PAL themselves predicted would happen in 2018. When lean season comes this is where A359 capacity comes in handy. As they are all needed in the western seabord of North America.

AC’s 777 are scary dense, seating 400+ on one of their configuration. Also domestic wise, AC network is bigger than WS that it can feed a lot of domestic traffic into YVR.

[ewh1]

First indicator of ORD:

https://x.com/aeroroutes/status/2026419220741808248?s=20

[Arianespace]

And there you go


https://flights.philippineairlines.com/en-ph/flights-to-chicago
Most likely on these dates on the last week of May 3 times a week. Interestingly, its A359 service

[Solblanc]

Isn't it easier to beef up an existing station that has less than daily service like YYZ and JFK and SEA instead of investing in a whole new station? Or are they confident in doing both with more A35Ks coming?

[chowpau]

its via LAX...nothing yet direct MNL-ORD

[Arianespace]

But of course. You don't sell tickets on platforms until you receive authority to sell. Although applications are usually approved when there is no objections to it, the same has not been issued at this time. So no ticket sales. Except the codes you see. You can however see when that propose launch date is, assuming no delay in permit issuances. Note too, permit is one thing and offer to sell is another.

[Arianespace]

Here is the application for Chicago. This is the second route applied out of four remaining. The first one is Seattle which is flown already. Two more destinations are in the works. We could be looking at IAD, SAN via YVR or HNL, or MIA via YVR. Take note also of the word could.

[Solblanc]

Incidentally, the Boeing FB page greeted PAL a happy anniversary.

The irony of Boeing losing market share in the Philippines was not lost on the comments section.

These routes like ORD... perfect for a 787. Perhaps a 787 can also do MNL-SAN nonstop?

MIA would be very interesting as there is little competition from within the region, unless they go the other way around the world through Middle Eastern hubs.

IAD already has CX there, and even CX doesn't fly daily.

[fd20]

IAD? Or maybe IAH? I remember IAH being discussed as a possible destination pre-COVID, after SEA (which has since been launched) and ORD.

[Solblanc]

Qantas just announced BNE-MNL shifting to daily XLR.

You see here the power of frequent flyer programs and alliances.

Qantas is about to put its worst product on a 7-hour BNE-MNL flight in the winter season, which includes the Christmas rush. Recliners in J. 30in pitch in Economy. And no IFE screens for anyone.

Their XLRs are denser. 200pax vs 169 on PAL's NEO.

And yet Qantas is still confident as they're charging higher fares than PAL.

It's the same as MEL-DPS. Garuda has lie-flat seats. Qantas sends an old 737. But the recliners on QF are way more expensive than the Garuda product.

Qantas is confident that their frequent flyer base, which thrives on Qantas points, is going to take Qantas no matter what. And it works for them.

Meanwhile PAL has to come up with all sorts of gimmicks to capture the Australian market. For the people that don't really care about points and loyalty, they can go to the LCCs.

Qantas would never pull this off in markets like SIN or HKG, because their competitors have a loyal base in Australia.

[Arianespace]

fd20 wrote

IAD? Or maybe IAH? I remember IAH being discussed as a possible destination pre-COVID, after SEA (which has since been launched) and ORD.

Typo. Sorry. It should be IAH, Houston.

[seven13]

Arianespace wrote

fd20 wrote

IAD? Or maybe IAH? I remember IAH being discussed as a possible destination pre-COVID, after SEA (which has since been launched) and ORD.

Typo. Sorry. It should be IAH, Houston.

Isn’t PH only allowed a number of US points under the current ASA? Was it 6 or 7?

[Arianespace]

PH, US expand air transport bilateral

May 18, 2023, 5:51 pm
MANILA – The Philippines and the United States will expand air transport connectivity and modernize the two countries’ bilateral aviation partnership, according to the Department of Transportation (DOTr).

In a news release Thursday, the DOTr said during the PH-US bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 11th Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Transportation Ministerial Meeting on May 16 in Detroit, Michigan, the Philippines and the US discussed mutual interest to promote air transport and expand cooperation in the aviation sector.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1201777

I haven't seen the 2023 bilaterals yet.

In 1995 bilaterals however, 8 points were added from October 1, 1996 and additional 4 points to be added on code shares. In 1982 however there were 9 routes covering Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, and four additional points. Since the advent of direct flights Guam and Saipan has been relegated to route 1 while route 2 now pertains exclusively to continental routes HNL, SFO and LAX and five other points. With the addition of JFK that becomes four. And then SEA and ORD. Two point remains.

[seven13]

Arianespace wrote

PH, US expand air transport bilateral

May 18, 2023, 5:51 pm
MANILA – The Philippines and the United States will expand air transport connectivity and modernize the two countries’ bilateral aviation partnership, according to the Department of Transportation (DOTr).

In a news release Thursday, the DOTr said during the PH-US bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 11th Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Transportation Ministerial Meeting on May 16 in Detroit, Michigan, the Philippines and the US discussed mutual interest to promote air transport and expand cooperation in the aviation sector.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1201777

I haven't seen the 2023 bilaterals yet.

In 1995 bilaterals however, 8 points were added from October 1, 1996 and additional 4 points to be added on code shares. In 1982 however there were 9 routes covering Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Guam, Saipan, and four additional points. Since the advent of direct flights Guam and Saipan has been relegated to route 1 while route 2 now pertains exclusively to continental routes HNL, SFO and LAX and five other points. With the addition of JFK that becomes four. And then SEA and ORD. Two point remains.

Thanks for the information. So PR could technically launch 2 more mainland point. By May, 2 additional A35K would be delivered, making it 3 on the fleet. So if PR is launching ORD by that time, it will only need 1 frame. Are we looking at SFO or LAX to be flown with the A35K now?

[seven13]

Arianespace wrote

Here is the application for Chicago. This is the second route applied out of four remaining. The first one is Seattle which is flown already. Two more destinations are in the works. We could be looking at IAD, SAN via YVR or HNL, or MIA via YVR. Take note also of the word could.

Would it be a good idea to launch a second YVR frequency should PR launch SAN, MIA or IAH?

The only asian carrier flying into SAN nonstop is JL.