Airlines in the Philippines

[Arianespace]

idp5601 wrote

So does this mean PR are considering the A330NEO for further expansion, especially into Europe? I don't see the 6 A359s being able to serve all the destinations they want to start.

Arianespace wrote

...And it simply does not cut it.

The A330NEO is a capable Transpac and European plane depending upon the airlines seating configuration. If PAL desires a less dense seat of around 250, it can comfortably open SEA, YVR, FCO, MXP, FRA and regional services to AKL and HNL. That is another set of six plane for thin routes. But that is not on the airlines radar right now.

At best, YVR, SEA, FCO, MXP, FRA, and LHR can be serve by a regular a359 with around 300 seats.

This should be a good question now.

At 251t, A339n suddenly become a truly transpac plane with even better CASM than the 242t. At 7200nm range that is merely 400nm short of the B789. Remarkable indeed. And to think it has just become 3t lighter than the 789 MTOW but can carry 297 pax at tri-class.

I must admit the 359 is the better plane but it is also $20 million less at list price, and it can fly domestic. Airbus truly knows how to tickle PAL and sell its plane.

[Evodesire]

So to which direction is PAL heading for? The A35K or the A339 or A35K first then A339 or vice versa? For them  to take in 4 frames of A359s this year, it seems that they really need more widebodies.

[Arianespace]

Solblanc's timeline presentation is very interesting.

While the A350 have options, so does the A330. Its difficult to tell at this time because the 251t was just announced by Airbus. Your guess should be as good as mine.

[Travelbug_89]

It's just crazy how far the A330 has come with the upgrades it's gone through. Who would've thunk the bigger one would become a transpacific plane.

[idp5601]

Among the big 3 airline alliances, which alliance is PAL most likely going to join? Star? Oneworld? SkyTeam? Would ANA buying a stake in them (and correct me if I'm wrong but it does look like they are the strongest candidate) could that boost their chances in joining Star, despite the fact that there are already 2 members in SE Asia?

[seastwofly]

A RECORD FLIGHT DISTANCE (A321LR)
4,109 n. m. (10h 51m)
https://airlinerwatch.com/a-record-flight-distance-from-the-a321lr/

[Arianespace]

idp5601 wrote

could that boost their chances in joining Star, despite the fact that there are already 2 members in SE Asia?

Why? How many members are there in EU? And how do you compare the population of Asia and EU? Really doesn't add up if we are thinking that way.

seastwofly wrote

A RECORD FLIGHT DISTANCE (A321LR)
4,109 n. m. (10h 51m)
https://airlinerwatch.com/a-record-flight-distance-from-the-a321lr/

It has been discussed briefly in January. Take note however that this is the 3 ACT as compared to PAL 2 ACT version.

Its capability to fly MNL - AKL vv at 4400nm remains suspect as commercial flight carries more payload than the airbus flight at 162 pax even if the manufacturer said to have flown as much as 4700nm after headwinds. You should read my earlier post as to why.

[idp5601]

Arianespace wrote

idp5601 wrote

could that boost their chances in joining Star, despite the fact that there are already 2 members in SE Asia?

Why? How many members are there in EU? And how do you compare the population of Asia and EU? Really doesn't add up if we are thinking that way.

Sorry, had to repost this because I accidentally emailed the response instead of posting it here.

Well one could say that 4 out of 10 *A members in Europe are part of the same group, which would explain the number of Star carriers in the EU.

And while there is equal or bigger demand for air travel in SE Asia I'm not sure how SQ, TG, or even BR would react to PR joining.

[Solblanc]

idp5601 wrote

Arianespace wrote

idp5601 wrote

could that boost their chances in joining Star, despite the fact that there are already 2 members in SE Asia?

Why? How many members are there in EU? And how do you compare the population of Asia and EU? Really doesn't add up if we are thinking that way.

Sorry, had to repost this because I accidentally emailed the response instead of posting it here.

Well one could say that 4 out of 10 *A members in Europe are part of the same group, which would explain the number of Star carriers in the EU.

And while there is equal or bigger demand for air travel in SE Asia I'm not sure how SQ, TG, or even BR would react to PR joining.

I don’t think overcrowding is a problem at Star. They seem to have a lot of members that pointedly ignore each other. Alliance membership also isn’t what it once was in the age of the JV. The special perks and benefits of frequent flyers tend to be more pronounced if they fly economy more often as people who always fly business won’t always care where their points go. And even if they were business flyers, accrual rates between member airlines are pretty restrictive depending on the relationship of the airlines within an alliance. Good luck racking up PPS points on UA.

Anyway, Star is overcrowded in any region, and the likes of TG and SQ have worse problems to worry about compared to a resurgent PR that becomes a star member. The ME3 and LCCs are hurting them far more.

[seven13]

Hi Arianespace!

I’m not sure if you were able to elaborate how CX fleet planners are making plans for CX’s fleet. You’ve mentioned several times that PR fleet planners are taking cues/following CX’s fleet planners footsteps.

[Arianespace]

Yes. In so far as their long haul fleet is concerned. I was discussing this in the other thread before. Both their largest planes are 77w's and ordered more. Both fly the A330s and the A340s as well as the erstwhile B747 and they have mutual dislike to the B787. Both ordered the A359s and both shy away from the A380.  Note also that in all its instance, it was always CX that ordered first followed by PR. So we should be watching closely the 35X coming up.

[B77Wflyer]

I'm Intrigue by the fact that both PR and CX dislike the B787 what could be the reason ?

[idp5601]

So would this mean PR are also looking at the 777X?

[Travelbug_89]

Could that have to do with the lack of payload/capacity? The 787 is on the smaller side for a widebody.

[Unbreakable]

Arianespace wrote

Yes. In so far as their long haul fleet is concerned. I was discussing this in the other thread before. Both their largest planes are 77w's and ordered more. Both fly the A330s and the A340s as well as the erstwhile B747 and they have mutual dislike to the B787. Both ordered the A359s and both shy away from the A380.  Note also that in all its instance, it was always CX that ordered first followed by PR. So we should be watching closely the 35X coming up.

TK also has a similar makeup with 77w as flagship and 330s as regionals. only difference is TK uses 737s. interior hard product is also same as PR with the same lie flat seats in J, while economy seats are also similar, albeit in 3-3-3 config.

[inSPECStor]

The Zodiac Aura Enhanced seats are full flat :)

[inSPECStor]

Disliked is such a strong word. I'd say Airbus provides the right amount of package. Plus it also helps having a common fleet.

[seven13]

That’s what I’ve noticed too. And also I thought, PR following the cues from CX has to do with its own economics and mathematics. I do sense that PR’s current fleet of 15 A330 is lacking, an additional frame should relieve them from irreg ops on some routes once one goes into service/tech.

[Solblanc]

seven13 wrote

That’s what I’ve noticed too. And also I thought, PR following the cues from CX has to do with its own economics and mathematics. I do sense that PR’s current fleet of 15 A330 is lacking, an additional frame should relieve them from irreg ops on some routes once one goes into service/tech.

This is where the 251t A330-900 neo becomes interesting. I can imagine PAL ordering a few at farnborough as it can reinforce existing routes as well as start more European or North American points.

[Arianespace]

junction

seven13 wrote

And also I thought, PR following the cues from CX has to do with its own economics and mathematics.

Well yes. It has more to do with economics and mathematics.

Consider it like this as was explained to me, the 350 is the better plane than the 787 which is the better plane than compared to the 330. Same scenario happens when you apply the range and the comfort levels. The 350 seats better at 9 abreast than 787 while it also seats better at 8 abreast than 330. Range wise, the 350 flies longer than the 787 which flies longer than the 330. Note the selling points here was the range in conjunction with the number of seats for their intended destinations, i.e. Europe and North America.

This is exactly the same reason why UAE chooses the 787 because it was the better plane for the 4-5000nm sector considering that it is way lighter than the 350 which is made for long haul which was the basis of PAL and CPA orders. If we make it at 7000nm, fortune change between these aircraft as the 359 will have the advantage no matter how you look at it.

Even if we consider the 339 at 251t, the 787 still is the better plane at 4-5000nm sector because it has wider seats and carries more payload. If you look at brochure figures intended for airlines and its different possible configurations and compare it with the other, then you would understand.

FYI, the 787 was made because of the 330 killing the 767, while the 350 was made to answer the 787 prompting reply with 77X. The 767 is dead but the 330 keeps on going like an energizer bunny and successfully catching up against the plane that was designed to kill it. The MTOW difference is only 3 tonnes. Meanwhile, the 350 is slowly distancing itself away towards the 77x competition.

But that is still a paper plane as John Leahy put it. There is no doubt about its possibility being better considering the 77w was likewise a better plane than its former competition but has no chance against its newest rival.