Airlines in the Philippines

[tigz]

Does this spell the end of Boeing in Philippine commercial aviation?

[Eurest]

The 45% discount PR got on the A359's coupled with the extended lease on the A343s, no financial penalty on the A321CEOs 2015 deferrals really stacked the odds against Seattle on this one

For B77W replacements it might not necessarily be the case unless Airbus creates the A350-1100

The 364 seat A350-1000 would be a reduction in seats from their current 375(?) seat B77W, so the B777-9 being able to carry 400pax bodes well as the replacement for the B77W
I was told the 300pax count and still being able to do MNL-JFK was what won the A359 as it not only becomes a route expanding aircraft, but also a growth one as well going from the 254 seat ex-IB A343
With PR's growing pax numbers, it will really need bigger planes especially since the new MNL airport is not expected to open until 2025

Unless PR decides to replace their B77W with *gasps* A380NEOs, which could be a 425 seater if F is restored on PR aiming to be a 5 star carrier. With the 575T A380 CEO already capable of MNL-JFK, then a NEO would do as well

That said, I fully expect PR to replace the RR A333s with B787-10s like BR. The A330-900 is not optimized for regional ops and would still lose out to the Boeing on 5000nm missions

Besides, M8 supposedly is getting B738s

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is PR considering for the Q300/400 replacements?
I've heard short field, steep ascent, & terrain clearing is vital as routes like BSO and USU are important, high yielding routes for PR/2P

[seven13]

according to the blog, if I understood the article correctly, PR ordered the LR version of the XWB. MTOW @280T, 165,000L of fuel capacity and 16,112Km in range. Seems like it's the same variant SQ ordered/converted recently.

Which route do you think will PR inaugurate this bird? I'm thinking if it'll start with regional routes like NRT, BKK and HKG for crew certification. Then once the 3rd and 4th frame is delivered, LHR would see them and we may expect JFK direct service then??

[airboy007]

believe it or not, crew certification for the B777 is not even completed yet with these planes only doing north american operations. If you fly PR to LAX/SFO/YVR on certain days, youd see several management crew doing the crew certifications.

starting with regional ops like CX (HKG-MNL) would definitely make training and familiarization so much faster.

[Eurest]

Which blog mentions the LR? I'm very skeptical of blogs, even those by fellow Canadiens about Philippine aviation
That said the LR makes the most sense, especially if they want those 300 seats year round for JFK.

I'd expect HKG (the 8AM flight), Japan routes and BKK to get the A350XWB initially for familiarization
As for which long-haul destination gets it first, SFO and YVR might receive them first as they are the shortest long-haul ones. Temporary of course as US west coast might be streamlined to pure B77W
LHR departure and arrival times at MNL would have to be adjusted as the A359 will definitely make it a 11-12.5hr flight.
CEB-LAX (if it survives by 2018) might see them for a bit to see how it handles on PR's longest sector pre-JFK nonstop

Speaking of JFK, I've said it before and I'll keep pounding it. With fuel so low, why not lease 3 B77L frames and start doing JFK direct now as well as CEB-LAX instead of waiting 2 and a half years
There are a few coming off of leases, and the ones stored can be had for cheap.
A 2005 B77E is 24M$, a B77L should not be more than double that with all the B77W's coming off lease this year.
Unless PR is getting CS100s to replace the Q300/400 (which would be able to do BSO takeoffs at MTOW) and suddenly the confidential ASA gets amended to award PR the remaining 5th freedom frequencies needed to make PR126/127 daily
There's nothing more 5 star than using regional jets where CebGo is using ATRs and once the A320s are all returned after lease, PR could use a 110 seater to complement the 199 seat A321s

[Evodesire]

Excited to see this in 2 years! Finally, its now a reality! Wonder what seats they would be using for all J, Y+ and Y.

You guys think they should also consider more A330/neo? Seems like PAL wants to increase its Cebu base. Hope they do or are considering reconfiguring those A330s if they want to be a 5 star airline in a few years time.

[tigz]

45% off catalogue price?, so Airbus really went for a dive on this and the extended lease and waived penalties on the A321s that would make it a no contest for Boeing. Perhaps this is a cheap interim until the 779 rolls out. On the bright side I'd be glad if PAL will get a sweet deal from BBD on the CS100s! Its too bad Porter lose out from the Liberals at Billy Bishop Airport as that would have been the showcase operation of the aircraft with the slightly extended island runway almost equalling majority of Philippine airports served by the Q400. Can't recall though if Transport Canada have certified the smaller CS for steep approach but I assume with Porter having a firm committment(subject to runway) BBD is gearing towards this. Speaking of this fabled Canadian aircraft manufacturer, I will be trying finally a ride on the classic Q300 in winter condition; in contrast PAL is flying this presently in hot and low level conditions.

[Eurest]

I think the AC order for the 75 CS300s was supposed to make amends for the PD YTZ fiasco but yeah. I hate it when politics interferes with Aviation, but Canada ei?

Steep approach approval for the CS100 was not included during the 12.15.2015 certification, so we'll still have to wait and see. But I'm quietly confident about the CS100s prospect in the PH now that the MRJ is delayed. I don't see how the added seats of the Q400NG benefits PR/2P as technical capability seems to be the primary factor for the Dash-8 replacements

PR is very smart to take advantage of manufacturers who are in precarious positions to get a good deal.
They did it in 2012 to Airbus when the EU was in crisis leveraging a good price and an EU blacklist exemption.
They did it again this year by delaying the order when they know both manufacturers would want widebody orders as analysts were predicting an order bubble.
With no new A350 orders in 2015, Airbus was definitely lacking in leverage and desperately needed an announcement for Singapore after the whimper that was Dubai.
If not for the PR order Airbus would be left to announce the pilot training center coop with VJA and the Singapore widebody parts/completion/refurbishing something
BBD stock price is low and the E2 and MRJ are stealing their thunder. Are we going to hear something for Farnborough 2016?
There are available slots for 3rd year of production


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm hearing LTP is top of the list for the AF A380 cabin refurbishments, especially with its experience on the QF birds. Malta may get the other birds as AF wants to have them done asap

[romantic_guy08]

Did not expect this 5th Freedom route:

airlineroute
‏@airlineroute
Philippine Airlines plans to add Taipei - Osaka Kansai service from 23JUN16, reservation currently not available

[Arianespace]

In a similar fashion that both Thailand and Taiwan enjoys the same unutilized benefit to KIX and HKG ex MNL. Both did exercised them before.

[seven13]

Check this link

Also this one

[Eurest]

I've been told PR did take the 280T (or 278T from another source) MTOW HGW weight variant but not the A350-900ULR's as it does not need the 165,000L fuel capacity as the block time for MNL-JFK is 2:46 shorter than SIN-EWR/JFK with the difference being around 1,100NM
I'd be surprised it it needed more than the A35K's 156,000L
PR MNL-JFK should also be generally shorter and less WX dependent than UA SFO-SIN, except on days when tailwinds are superb around Alaska

Apparently the A359 has excellent polar performance as during the certification flight they never needed to fly below FL290 even at 470knots to maintain fuel temps

Anyways, more tidbits from Singapore. The ex-IB A343s may not have been just on extended leases, but already paid for, or given, depends on who you ask. I did not know AFS had lease to own payment plans

PR also talked to the French, Canadiens and, ugh, Brazilians about the Dash-8 replacements.
I doubt they would bother with the South Americans if they were not seriously considering RJ's, as I don't think 30 seater props are in PR's plans
Though the CS have better takeoff field lengths, the E2 has better landing field lengths
I have serious doubts about the 600 series

[Arianespace]

It's the same variant ordered by SQ. The 280T is the ULR version is it not?  The range gain is offest by the number of seats they got which happen to be 300 pax. and with 10% allowance for wind that is 870nm less usable range which is just perfect. Average long hauler happens to have only 250-280 seats. Airbus was selling this product since September. Note that this variant was announced in October and PR ended up following SQ. They will have a base model though.

As to AFS, all are let. None are acquired. Financial reporting can sometimes be deceiving that you thought otherwise. I actually learned this stuff while studying overseas.

As to the turboprops, It will still be Bombardier, the new generation kind. It will not be CS though.

[seven13]

with 300 pax in 3 class layout...42 JCL, 24 Y+, 234 ECY? Wondering if it'll be 1-2-1, 2-4-2, 3-3-3 cabin layout.

[Eurest]

Airbus press would have stated Philippine Airlines selects A350-900ULR if PR did select the ULR much like it did when SQ chose to convert some of their orders to 6

Airbus offers different weight variants with the same MTOW, much like the 242T A333E which has WV081 with a 242T MTOW but a MZFW of 171T and a WV082 with a 242T MTOW with a flexible MZFW rating of 171-175T
PR supposedly receiving a 280T MTOW variant does not necessarily mean a ULR. Although ULR's can be "reconfigured" to the base A359 by reprogramming the fuel computer to set the volume cut-offs for each compartment to the desired lower level and adjusting the inerting system to compensate for the lower fuel levels and relative "empty space"

The one SQ ordered was performance guaranteed for 10,000NM, the PR MOU only stated a 8000NM figure

Airbus should publicly release the updated planning characteristics for the A350XWB with even more weight variants

As for the Dash-8 replacements I was told the RFP was sent out last year with the intent on pre-discussions at the Air Show and the decision by the end of the year.
With Embraer being involved, and their lack of a 76-90 seat turboprop, I assume the scope of the RFP meant that the Brazilians were able to discuss the E2 with PR technical committee

As the A321SL are at 199 seats, PR would be wise to seek out a smaller variant once the A320CEO leases expire. Besides even 2P used to operate 737's where it now operates Dash 8s
M8 uses BAe 146-200s, how 5 star would it be to operate props where the competition uses regionals

With airports lioke USU getting upgrades in the future, why forego the lift capability of RJ's as even payload restricted, they can offer a greater revenue potenntial

[Arianespace]

There was no need because they aren't bought unlike SQ. That was stated by Airbus to us why it isn't so. There are only three variants of the A350 presently, 268,272, and 275. None has the leg to do MNL-JFK at PR's desired configuration. The COO did expressly stated those as operational necessity.

SQ doesn't have performance guaranty for 10,000nm, because in all honesty, the plane can only fly 8700nm. Of course they can reach that flight envelope empty, which by the way is a good candidate plane for PR1 flying as far as MNL-GRU non-stop because it carry less than 100 passengers on long haul flights.

The Embraer offer (E175) was second in a row particularly with the introduction of E2, hit and miss, but there really was no economics of operating the jet on a small sub-fleet of 5 to 10 to the desired missionary routes they were intended to fly majority of which can be reached less than an hour. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so to speak. If E175 doesn't stand a chance, what more the CS100. I kinda recall Tigz reasoning for this on the other forum sometime ago as quite on the spot.

The Q's and the ATR's still reign supreme crisscrossing this small archepelagic country. Thus, the repeat orders. Economic efficiency can't be wrong with that decision.

[Eurest]

Meant to say performance guarantee 10,000MI/8700NM while the PR WV is slated at 9200MI/8000NM

Those 3 MTOW variants you mentioned are the previous ones on offer prior to 04.2015 and do not represent the current weight variants one can now purchase from Airbus
When Airbus updates the publicly released A350 airport planning characteristics, perhaps you'll see the expanded weight variants currently on offer representing improvements and weight savings Airbus has made on the A350

The 6+6 order are direct purchase from Airbus as per the MoU, thus why PR is looking at sale & leaseback options

Curious though on what you said about the Embraer offer. Second in a row particularly to the E2? Hit and Miss why?
I'm interested to know why there seems to be a bias against RJs

Mills was from SG and the maintenance cost per hour of their Q400s equaled that of their B738s at 1300$/hr. Using RJ's also gets you shorter block times and better payload, You also would have better flexibility in making the sundown curfew on most airports
If economics and efficiency was all that was needed then the ATR 600s would win, but they do not represent a vast performance improvement over the 500s with just a .5T MTOW increase resulting in add'l 900kg for RTO at MPH compared to a standard one in a 500

[Arianespace]

Don't worry, We do make mistake sometimes.

True. There could be 178 WV in between 175 and 280 which they are developing. After all the 280 was announced only in 2015 October. But I am not so sure about the varying traits of the 280 tonners range wise, as you claimed. Anyway, whatever the actual range is, it is still speculative at this point considering that its not even build yet. But we can agree that it can fly MNL-JFK and back with 300 pax and cargo all year round without penalties, in a similar fashion that SQ will fly the same at 170 pax and cargo SIN-JFK and back.

There is no bias against RJ. It has more to do with airport infrastructures for most part. As for the rest, on shorter flights of less than an hour, the operating economics of the ATR/Q400 duo are far more superior to those of the E175/CS100, but that advantage evens out at about 500 nautical miles, so they claimed. That is roughly equivalent to a route from MNL-ZAM or MNL-CBO. Only Tawi-Tawi would qualify if we follow that logic. Yet TWI is service by A319 from ZAM. So if flying missionary is half empty, which usually happens during lean season, then that truly makes a difference on the bottomline.

[tigz]

Bombardier is now offering a 90 seat Q400 with longer cycle for checks and added payload. Fuselage is not change but maybe some structural enhancements. Galley is reconfigured and only 28" seat pitch. Most of the Philippines provincial sectors are within 1hr block time with the exception of MLA-SUG. For an LCC, it can keep fares low with added quantity. Definitely a game changer if PAL will take this. The less busy routes usually averages 100pax or less for the A319\A320 yet more costly to operate. Because of its high rate of climb, its usually just around 10mins difference from the jet yet very versatile to operate on short runways.

[Eurest]

Here's a comp of the Q400NG vs CS100

Fuel costs per nmi @ current Asia JetA average price of 0.984$/gallon
Q400NG - 1.11$/NM
CS100 - 2.17$/NM

MNL-BSO @360NM
Q400NG - 399.6$ @ current block time of 1:45
CS100 - 781.2$ @ projected block time of 1:20 assuming 30mins taxi times @ MNL

Runway Length Takeoff @ MTOW
Q400NG - 4819ft
CS100 - 4000ft

Landing Runway Length @ MLW
Q400NG - 4232ft
CS100 - 4450ft

Current Dash 8 routes
BSO -3325/ 4101ft (which is it really?)
USU -3300ft (pending improved runway capability upgrade)
CRM - 4429ft
CYP - 4843ft
MPH - 6890ft (upgrades finished?)

Payload Capacity
Q400NG - 18,716lbs
CS100 - 33,350lbs

Potential as growth aircraft (seems to be imp't for PR) @ 28" pitch single class config
Current PR Q400 - 76pax
Q400NG - 90pax
CS100 - 133pax @32" 110/115

PR maybe unable to take advantage of the Q400NG as the BSO flights are at times based on weather reduced by 20pax. After 76 pax and bags @ 102kgs, there is no revenue cargo potential because of the Q's payload capacity
Representing almost twice the capability of the Q, the CS100 even payload restricted offers more revenue potential
There is also the slot consideration as BSO in 2014 & 2015? went to 2x a day during summer when winds were permitting full Q400 flights. A single flight would be able to accomodate almost the pax of both flights and during lean season, PR would be able to shift to cargo especially during storm season carrying food supplies or relief goods when ships are unable to.
The Q400Combi though provides an interesting aircraft as though pax has lean season, cargo generally does not especially shipping to island points like BSO

As for Tawi-Tawi isn't 5J the one flying there and not PR?

I still would like to know what you heard about Embraer and the hit and miss thing

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New A350-900 Weight Variant To Meet PAL Requirement

Aviationweek has a new article on the new A359 weight variant for PR (subscription required)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://manila.coconuts.co/2016/02/23/delayed-pal-flight-bangkok-pure-hell

His logic is correct in reply to it's your job to protect us. What's at fault here is the dispatch reliability of the A343, in this case possible static fluid or oil leak from the CFMs
2 and half more years of this does nnnot bode well for PR