Airlines in the Philippines

[Solblanc]

So... did they manage to install Aura Lite? Or, was Recaro able to modify the current seats to make them full-flat?

[seastwofly]

Just a query, anyone can comment...
What is deference between the SEAT of an airplane and BUS a Recaro Brand??
Sa tingin ko parehas/same lang...
Here in Italy normal ko lang nakikita yung "RECARO" na marka...
Most sa work area ko, a recycling plant...

Kasi, minsan kung ayos pa, pwede pa, save for our equipmentps... mga truck, payloader, etc...

[Arianespace]

It's the same. It's just a seat. Recaro has been known as a premium car seat maker courtesy of Porsche before jumping to airline seat business. Porsche's affiliation made the former famous.

[Unbreakable]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ecQlPXXu_0

Sam Chui's PAL A330 Review (not the new triclass)

[Travelbug_89]

I guess this should put to bed any doubts of 787-9's capabilities? https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/03/25/17-hours-qantas-makes-history-australia-europe-flight/456796002/

It makes one wonder if PAL will switch to the 787 when the A330s are due for retirement or will they stick with Airbus with the neos

[maortega15]

Travelbug_89 wrote

I guess this should put to bed any doubts of 787-9's capabilities? https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/03/25/17-hours-qantas-makes-history-australia-europe-flight/456796002/

It makes one wonder if PAL will switch to the 787 when the A330s are due for retirement or will they stick with Airbus with the neos

Well, PAL already has the A359 for longhaul missions like MNL-YYZ and JFK.

Just because one aircraft type works for one airline, doesn't mean it will work for another. They each have their own requirements and business model.

Their A330's are used on at most 11 hour flights to HNL.

The A330's are still relatively new and just been refurbished, but when the time comes for replacement, they can always go for the A330neo to keep costs down and to have crew commonality.

They can opt for the 787-10 to replace their A330ceo's, but Boeing has to give them a deal and concessions that PAL can't refuse. So far, it's Airbus who's been giving PAL deals they can't refuse along with aircraft availability.

[Travelbug_89]

Yeah I know that they were set on the A359 due to availability and Airbus giving them a good deal. I guess what I'm getting at is had PAL gone with the 789, that plane would've been able to do YYZ and JFK without restrictions on a year round basis but capacity would probably be around 250 seats instead of 295 that's expected for PAL's A359s.
I'm also partially confused cause of freakin Boeing's range chart stating the 789 has a range of 7635 nm (or something around those lines).

The A339 would be the cheapest and quickest to service. Tho a 787-10 wouldn't look bad in PR colors.

[Unbreakable]

Travelbug_89 wrote

Yeah I know that they were set on the A359 due to availability and Airbus giving them a good deal. I guess what I'm getting at is had PAL gone with the 789, that plane would've been able to do YYZ and JFK without restrictions on a year round basis but capacity would probably be around 250 seats instead of 295 that's expected for PAL's A359s.
I'm also partially confused cause of freakin Boeing's range chart stating the 789 has a range of 7635 mm (or something around those lines).

The A339 would be the cheapest and quickest to service. Tho a 787-10 wouldn't look bad in PR colors.

Despite the capability, i still think PAL will stick to airbus due to fleet commonality strategy. Boeing lost this fight ever since PAL decided to replace its 737s with a320s. I think that was the turning point and where PR concluded that the a320 will make for a better business case than the 737. From there, all future purchases were due to fleet commonality.

The 777 is the exception since PR needed a 747 replacement but the a340-600 (which was their other option to the 77w) did not meet their requirements. But I'll go on a limb to guess that Airbus was giving a better discount on the A346 if not equal to Boeing given the low sales numbers on the 346.

[Travelbug_89]

Yeah, PR is getting very close to going all Airbus. Provided they stick with the A330s when the current ones are due for replacement and A35Js replace the 77Ws when they're due.

[maortega15]

The 77W was the best choice at that time as it was more efficient and economical with 2 less engines. CX's 3 A346's were just leased till the 77W's came along.

Now, if PAL needs more capacity from it's current 77W's, they can always acquire the 779 as Airbus doesn't see a market for an A35K stretch, yet.

If they want to replace the 77W's like for like, then they can go A35K. The 77W's are still selling because fuel is cheap at the moment and much faster to acquire.

[Solblanc]

Boeing won the 77W order because PAL had deposits with Boeing for the 747s that they ordered but didn't take. If it weren't for those deposits, PAL would be flying the A346. And it might have made things easier for PAL had they done so. The A346 would've been delivered to PAL before the Philippines would be hit by CAT2 by the US. The 77W entered the PAL fleet some five years before they could even fly it to the United States. They should've just spent the deposits on 787s.

Speaking of 787s, they're still pretty weight-restricted when doing ULR ops. Time will tell once PAL starts MNL-JFK nonstop if the A350 can do the route with a full payload.

[Arianespace]

Correct. But then the cue to the 7E7 is so long, and they are not on the market for a 250 seater transpac jet that should replace the 744.

If I may add, PAL 359 is already weight restricted. And so does SIA at 280t. At maximum payload, it can barely reach 5500nm. That means its payload has to weigh around 57 tons enough to reach HNL. Airlines like PAL usually does it between 30-40 tons, thus providing for more range.

Travelbug_89 wrote

I guess this should put to bed any doubts of 787-9's capabilities? https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/03/25/17-hours-qantas-makes-history-australia-europe-flight/456796002/

It makes one wonder if PAL will switch to the 787 when the A330s are due for retirement or will they stick with Airbus with the neos

I would have to agree to maortega15 post.

What capabilities? That is deceptive. At 236 passengers, its too low. Its one reason why PAL did not even bother to consider the 789. At around 300 however for the A359, now we're talking.

Unless you are carrying premium traffic like SIA, this kind of service wont work for PAL. We are mostly VFR traffic with known oversize luggage.

Like what I said previously, Boeing range chart is different from that of airlines.

While B789 is known to be a 8000nm plane with 200 passengers, A359 on the other hand can do the same range at 300 passengers. PAL's math isn't that difficult.

[Unbreakable]

Solblanc wrote

Boeing won the 77W order because PAL had deposits with Boeing for the 747s that they ordered but didn't take. If it weren't for those deposits, PAL would be flying the A346. And it might have made things easier for PAL had they done so. The A346 would've been delivered to PAL before the Philippines would be hit by CAT2 by the US. The 77W entered the PAL fleet some five years before they could even fly it to the United States. They should've just spent the deposits on 787s.

Speaking of 787s, they're still pretty weight-restricted when doing ULR ops. Time will tell once PAL starts MNL-JFK nonstop if the A350 can do the route with a full payload.

These are some very interesting insights. thanks for this.

[Travelbug_89]

Definitely no way for the 789 to win in that case.

Thanks for the explanation!

As for configurations, aren't the A359s only getting 290 seats or something like that?

[maortega15]

Qantas and United have blocked seats in the back for PER-LHR and LAX-SIN respectively.

The A359's equivalent is the 78J. But the 78J doesn't have the range like the A359. Basically, the A359 is the longhaul version while the 78J is the regional-medium haul version.

Boeing can -ER the 78J if they wanted to.

[Solblanc]

Travelbug_89 wrote

Definitely no way for the 789 to win in that case.

Thanks for the explanation!

As for configurations, aren't the A359s only getting 290 seats or something like that?

It’s about as much as you can cram in an a359 if you want to offer a business, premium economy, and economy cabin. CX a359s have a similar passenger count. An equivalent configuration on a 789 would give you at most 250 seats.

[Evodesire]

Read in the blog that Airbus did a salespitch to PAL regarding the A330-900N. Though yes it would be nice to see this too in PAL's fleet but wouldn't the A359 and A35K still be more sound? In fact, I see more of a Cebu Pacific to take in those A339s if they want to really go transpac on an all economy low cost configuration.

[Travelbug_89]

That new 251T A330-900neo would be a pretty good fit and the commonality would help a lot too. It's impressive how far the A330 has come, I wonder how much more room for improvement it has.

[Travelbug_89]

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bgz56qRnN8I/

It's out of the paint shop and is it wearing the new winglets?!

[Solblanc]

Evodesire wrote

Read in the blog that Airbus did a salespitch to PAL regarding the A330-900N. Though yes it would be nice to see this too in PAL's fleet but wouldn't the A359 and A35K still be more sound? In fact, I see more of a Cebu Pacific to take in those A339s if they want to really go transpac on an all economy low cost configuration.

Airbus also needs a launch customer for the a330-800 so they’re pulling out all the stops to market it. The A330-800 works best on routes where the extra capacity of the 339 or the 359 won’t be needed at all, which works for very few airlines. I mean, if the demand isn’t that high yet, why start the route at all?

However, there is one thing that is very telling about PAL’s fleet plan. All 6 A350s are expected to be delivered by the first half of 2019. The target date for the retirement of the A340 fleet is 2021. Looks like they will need a little extra capacity in the coming years.