Airlines in the Philippines

[Eurest]

They seem to be implementing what you are saying

http://airlineroute.net/2015/08/18/pr-america-w15update/

eff 16SEP15 Manila – Vancouver – Toronto Service reduces from 4 to 3 weekly (operational schedule below effective 25OCT15)
PR118 MNL1500 – 1200YVR1330 – 2110YYZ 77W 357
PR119 YYZ2240 – 0105+1YVR0220+1 – 0735+2MNL 77W 357

eff 25OCT15 Manila – Vancouver – New York JFK Airbus A340-300 replaced by Boeing 777-300ER, 4 weekly service
PR126 MNL2350 – 2050YVR2250+1 – 0700+1JFK 77W x357
PR127 JFK1100 – 1350YVR1520 – 2035+1MNL 77W x146

eff 25OCT15 Manila – Vancouver 3 weekly terminator PR116/117 service operated by Airbus A340-300, instead of 777-300ER. Note this service will be cancelled from 15MAR16
PR116 MNL1900 – 1600YVR 343 246
PR117 YVR2315 – 0430+2MNL 343 246

Are they really cancelling 116/117 by 3.2016? Maybe PR is getting two ex-Kenya Airways B77W by 1quarter next year and this is the add'l 2 B77W airlinebuilder from ANet is talking about

        Since March 31, 2015 and through the date of this filing, we entered into LOIs with Philippine Airlines for the October 2016 and December 2016 Boeing 777-300ER deliveries, which is expected to increase our combined annual total contracted revenue from owned and contracted aircraft as of the date of this filing to approximately $290.5 million, which would total approximately $2.8 billion over the life of the existing or expected leases. All aircraft acquisitions are subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions. In addition, our ability to acquire these aircraft will also depend on our ability to secure adequate financing. There can be no assurance that we will acquire these aircraft, enter into a definitive lease for the aircraft or that the actual monthly contractual rent provided for in any such LOI will equal the expected monthly contractual rent. Lease revenue relating to the aircraft is dependent on delivery of the aircraft. Lease revenue for floating rate leases has been calculated using the prevailing rate as of March 31, 2015. Lease revenue for LOIs under which the rent has not yet been fixed are escalated to the estimated delivery month according to the escalation formulas specified in our LOI, and calculated using the specified reference rate. Actual revenue could vary.

It seems PR does not disclose LOIs or MoUs but only publicly announces confirmed deals, so I am asking around if there are already signed LoIs or MoUs for the A343 replacements
They can't be just using the reconfigured A333s right, as the payload range even for the 242T variant at 6500nm is 25,000kg, which is almost half of the optimum 48,000kg

[Arianespace]

Got it. So its YVR - JFK that loses the A340 which means the second flight MNL-LAX is still A340.

These Intrepid public disclosure is really confusing now. PAL says one way while lessor says another. I don't know which is which. The LOI's is dated 31.3.15 and announcement was made in June. At least one thing is certain now. The aircraft lessor that was in MNL in March prior to the A350 arrival was from Intrepid.

Could it be that there were amendments to this deal? Particularly changes in delivery schedules and/or two extra plane rumored to be floating around? Or is it still the same considering this clause:

 There can be no assurance that we will acquire these aircraft, enter into a definitive lease for the aircraft or that the actual monthly contractual rent provided for in any such LOI will equal the expected monthly contractual rent. Lease revenue relating to the aircraft is dependent on delivery of the aircraft.

Options perhaps?

Something really doesn't add up.

[Eurest]

It was an LoI in March but PR and Intrepid signed the lease agreement in July after amending their S-1 forms in June, a dutiful four months of negotiations perhaps.
Since US companies only amend their financials every 3 months, they have not yet amended their S-1 forms with regards to the PR deal but it is happening as per the numerous press releases last July that named Intrepid as the source of 2 incoming B77w. I'll check once they file their September amendments for any delivery date adjustments.
Another possibility of the delivery date differences is that Boeing may be reducing the production rates.
Airbus has already reduced the A330 rates to 9 a month from the previous as 10 as they were unable to secure more orders to fill the backlog before the A330NEO. Airbus will further reduce the rates to 6 by next year. So Boeing may be doign the same thing and Intrepid's B77W delivery date may have changed.
I'd look into the Boeing financials but they are too many pages to sift through.

I am quite interested in Airlinebuilder's words that there are indeed 4 incoming B77W for PR
I have heard through the grapevine that one of the engineers that PR sent to Lockheed Martin in the early 80s to study Carbon Fiber in Aerospace applications is now working for Boeing at their Charleston plant. Another of the ex-PR engineers trained in composite materials is an independent contractor for a British Formula 3 team residing in the UK.
I know an ATC from Philadelphia is a Filipino who used to war at the NAIA ATC is also in ANet
Could Airlinebuilder of Anet be that ex-PR employee now an engineer for Boeing?
He was right that indeed 5J was presented the 550 seat B77W but ultimately 5J rejected it as payload range wise that 550 config would not make west coast US especially during strong headwinds when the ESAD for PR's 370 B77W makes it an 7400nm journey on those harsh winters

The Kenya Airways B77W is another possibility for the 3rd and 4th provided they are indeed coming as they also have GE90-115BLs, also have the same 2-3-3 config in J but has only 28 and 372 in Y. KQ is desperate to let these go, and the word is that they are priced well enough.
They are finding it difficult to offload the 3 B77W as there seems to be a supply gut of B77Ws now as Boeing is offering bigger discounts to fill up the backlog of the B777 before the B777 Max.
Maybe PR has also signed an LoI or MoU with Boeing itself for 2 more B77W?

[romantic_guy08]

Instagram find...

Posted by a PR employee


caption: "Philippine Airlines to have its first Boeing 787-9?? to go or no go? ☺️😊 ✈️"

I think this is the Boeing 787-9 Demo Book mentioned in the other site by myks318 as the photo posted bythe insider info he referred to.

[Eurest]

Both A359 and B789 can seat 315 pax in 2 class cofig, but the 787-9 has the payload/range advantage as well as being able to carry more LD3s
The B789 also has better fuel burn but based on pax experience on the QR 788 vs A359, the Airbus offers better experience in Y

Delta was offered the B787-9 @ USD135M by Boeing while Airbus offered the A359 @ USD160M during their 2014 widebody RFP

Another thing going for the Boeing is that NH is now doing 787 EIS support for new operators.
With a codeshare partnership, it should even be easier for PR to accomodate the Dreamliner as their is some level of operational familiarity to better facilitate the EIS
There also have been cancellations (TSO, BER) and deferrals (KLM) as well as conversions (UA) so slots are available for the 787 as well as the upcoming production ramp up at Charleston.
As for lessors, Avolon and Air Lease Corp have 787 slots but I've yet to ask if they have unplaced aircraft. Avolon is a current PR lessor but ALC is not, no Philippine clients for ALC at all I think.

That said, I would still be surprised if PR don't go for the A359 as the A343 replacements, but from an accountant's perspective, the Dreamliner makes more sense

[seven13]

Does the 789 have the range to do JFK nonstop without payload restrictions? JJB was quite vocal that only the 359 can fly the route nonstop so I have an impression that they are leaning towards the A359.

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

Both A359 and B789 can seat 315 pax in 2 class cofig, but the 787-9 has the payload/range advantage as well as being able to carry more LD3s
The B789 also has better fuel burn but based on pax experience on the QR 788 vs A359, the Airbus offers better experience in Y

I beg to differ. On the contrary, A359 carries more cargo than B789. Although they carry the same number of LD3s.

There is really no comparison between A359 and B789. To be fair it should be paired to B7810, if at all.

Why do I say this?
1. The A359 is a bigger plane than the B789
(66.8m vs. 62.8) size difference alone translates to 36 more pax.

2. Because it is bigger it is heavier
(268t vs. 252t)

3. Since it is heavier it carries more fuel
(138,000l vs, 126,370l)

4. It also carries more cargo too
(76.3t vs. 55t)

5. Because it carries more cargo then its range has to take a hit
(7,590nm vs. 8,300nm)

6. It also carry more passengers
(440 vs. 420, based on certifications)

With that considered, I would say A350 wins hands down. However, when paired to the B7810, I will go with your assessment.  Here is a nice analysis on the latter

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2769085-wide-body-battle-boeing-787minus-10-or-airbus-a350minus-900

seven13 wrote

Does the 789 have the range to do JFK nonstop without payload restrictions? JJB was quite vocal that only the 359 can fly the route nonstop so I have an impression that they are leaning towards the A359.

With MNL-JFK range considered, only two airplanes can fly this route, all Boeing, B77w and B789. With ESAD considered, some times could be flown half the capacity or a tech stop in ICN necessary. While the A359 can reached MNL- JFK based on its nominal range, no airline in the world would dare try fly the flight envelope. At most they have at least 500nm of reserve equivalent to 1 hour more flying time. So the A359 and the B7810 is out of the equation.

Perhaps the better question is would PAL want to fly JFK direct? If the answer is affirmative, then B789 is a no brainer choice having more range than the 77w.

Then the second question would be,is the flight economical for the airline? This is where our answers might probably differ. I am really not inclined to believe that PAL will order a plane simply because it has the range to fly JFK. On the contrary, an existing fleet is already mission capable. It only needs payload restrictions on other times to address headwinds.

[Eurest]

The only current Boeing that can do MNL-JFK inbound & outbound right now not restricted is the B77L, no ACT's needed.
The 789 could do it but I don't have the proper payload range charts of the Dreamliner, so I don't know how much penalty but it will still be profitable I suspect

Here are the estimated flight details for

MNL-JFK if you're interested
Block Time - 16:50 up to 17:30 depending on JFK congestion (assuming fuel friendly cruise mach, might be 1-2hrs less as A350 is one of the fastest Airbii)
Distance - 7409nmi
ESAD - 6850nmi (conservative winds assumed)

JFK-MNL
Block Time - 18:50 up to 19:30 depending on JFK congestion
Distance - 7409nmi
ESAD - 8060nmi (conservative winds assumed)

To compare to the discontinued MNL-YYZ
Block time - 16:15
Distance - 7145nmi
ESAD - 6610nmi (conservative winds assumed)

YYZ-MNL (why it never happened and stopped at YVR instead)
Block time - 18:20
Distance - 7145nmi
ESAD - 7780nmi (conservative winds assumed)

MNL-JFK is more similar to LAX-MNL ESAD wise except that JFK is more congested and you'll want to carry more fuel reserves thus the B77W can't do it profitably. I suspect westbound back to Manila will have a tech stop at YVR like the pre-SMC 744 LAX and SFO flights, that or PR was offered the rumored A359HGW with MTOW increased to 280T plus improvements from the A35J to improved the A359's range by around 400nm to 900nm

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

YYZ-MNL (why it never happened and stopped at YVR instead)
Block time - 18:20
Distance - 7145nmi
ESAD - 7780nmi (conservative winds assumed)

MNL-JFK is more similar to LAX-MNL ESAD wise except that JFK is more congested and you'll want to carry more fuel reserves thus the B77W can't do it profitably. I suspect westbound back to Manila will have a tech stop at YVR like the pre-SMC 744 LAX and SFO flights, that or PR was offered the rumored A359HGW with MTOW increased to 280T plus improvements from the A35J to improved the A359's range by around 400nm to 900nm

PAL was not cleared yet to fly Siberian Airspace. So there is no way for them to fly eastward.

Range can be a confusing topic when flying long haul like MNL-JFK or MNL-LAX vv, typically East-West flights.

This should be a good reading to understand Eurest earlier post.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0027.shtml

New York flight is however a different matter from say YVR and LAX as flights from MNL usually go up the north pole and then goes down Alaska following the North-South pattern. Return flight however heads over Greenland to Europe and then to Siberian airspace.

Here is a typical route flown by CX eastward to JFK
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA840

And here is a typical flight JFK-HKG also eastbound
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA841/history/20150816/1400Z/KJFK/VHHH

PAL will have the same flight plan to JFK with another hour added to compensate for MNL distance. Observe the different range from direct route to planned by the pilot to actual range flown. Flown range will also drastically change from winter time.

Flights from Asia to New York sometimes take advantage of the tailwinds provided by the strong jetstreams over the north Pacific. So airlines take route further south than the North Pole, taking them over Japan, Alaska and northern Canada. It’s a longer distance than flying via the north pole, but the flying time is shorter due to the strong tailwind, and hence shorter flight and fuel savings.


http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/date/2008/01/04


Indeed, the B77L is the overlord of this sectors, but PAL has no plans to have them, while A350 is a contender for this route, with Airbus offering Singapore Airlines more leg to JFK, probably the same configuration of the A345 at 100 pax. I doubt if even a 200 pax version can work for PAL.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-17/airbus-plans-long-range-a350-to-fly-singapore-nyc-direct-by-2018

[romantic_guy08]

^^^

I just read a very informative discussion on Anet regarding the planned A359LR for SQ so they can fly SIN-JFK non-stop, and Stitch summarized it perfectly I think:

If it is to carry ~300 passengers in multiple classes and cargo, the 777-8 will be better.

If it is to carry ~100 Business Class passengers, the A350-900LR will be better.

[Eurest]

Let me explain further then

The fuel cost per nautical mile of the A359 is $28.22, while the 789 is @ $25.90

If one will just look at numbers ala Trump Cards (did those get big in the Philippines?), then the A359's bigger numbers win but those don't tell the exact figure

The B787-9 has a fuel capacity of 138,700 liters (36,641 US gal)
The A359 has a max fuel capacity of 138,000 liters

The B787-9 has a 172m3 (6,086 cu ft) of cargo capacity able to fit 36LD3 or 11x (88x125 pallets) or 11x (96x125 pallets)
The A359 has a 172.4m3 of total cargo volume, carrying the same number of LD3s
You said it yourself, the A359 is the bigger aircraft thus it has bigger wings. So its wing box takes up more of its undercarriage space that's why they both carry the same LD3 numbers.
After bags, the B789 can have 23 open LD3 positions, if you do indeed use the Airbus estimates of passenger counts at 294 vs 325, you'll also have less open LD3 positions on the A359 because of the add'l 31 passenger's bags

The Max Zero Fuel Weight of the B789 is 165T with an MTOW at 253T
The MZFW of the A359 is 192T with an MTOW at 268T
You can clearly see which one will be weight limited first

The 787-9 is an efficient stretch, while the A350-900 is the base variant, that's why the A35J has more range even though it is a bigger plane as it has reached its apex efficiency

The 789 is cheaper to buy, has a lower MTOW which translates to things like lower landing fees, carries roughly the same pax and the same LD3 or pallet positions. Those are my reasons why I said it is more efficient.

I got the numbers from here
Boeing 787 Airport Planning Characteristics
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf

Airbus A350-900 Airport Compatibility Brochure (might not be accessible to the general public)
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/A350-900_Airport_Compatibility_Brochure_August_2015.pdf

If you want to learn more about Payload Range here is an excellent article that demystifies it, I believe its a 3 part series using the B77L as an example
http://leehamnews.com/2015/08/07/bjorns-corner-why-is-the-real-range-of-an-airliner-always-shorter-then-what-the-oem-says/

Do consider subscribing to their premium content as they are very knowledgeable folk with entertaining and informative articles

[Arianespace]

The present A359 can actually fly MNL- JFK, only that it is load restricted unlike the B789 which has less restrictions. There is penalty so to speak to be able to fly the route. And that is shedding some extra pounds off the plane. If it were to carry only passengers and its baggage, it can do a return flight JFK-MNL perfectly. At 300 passengers, it will have payload of around 36 tons, enough to extend range to more than 8,000nm or around 16-17 hours flying time.



 

[seven13]

Wait. What does ESAD mean? I mean to as Eurest and Arianespace.
I'm trying to digest the last 3-4 posts and will try my very best to catch up with the discussion. :D :D

[Eurest]

Equivalent Still Air Distance, or the actual distance taking into consideration tailwinds or headwinds that affect the flight

Say LAX-MNL, sometimes it takes 10hrs to fly, sometimes it takes 14hrs. ESAD depeds on the weather and is what flight ops uses to calculate for payload as well as fuel for the flight.
Software has made it easier to compute this ad one need only input the day and aircraft used and the computer does everything.

My apologies if my posts are technical, I find these forums are populated by more intelligent posters thus I am more likely to share these details than that other forum that has tall buildings and people from San Francisco with irrational ideas

[romantic_guy08]

^^

Boeing recently revised their performance assumptions though:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-revises-quotobsoletequot-performance-assumptions-415293/

Model        Seats (2-class)  Range (new)   Range (old)
787-8          242               7,355nm       7,850nm
787-9          290               7,635nm       8,300nm

[romantic_guy08]

From Ferpe of Anet...

Range charts for the A359, A358 (discontinued) and the B789

[Arianespace]

romantic_guy08 wrote

^^

Boeing recently revised their performance assumptions though:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-revises-quotobsoletequot-performance-assumptions-415293/

Model        Seats (2-class)  Range (new)   Range (old)
787-8          242               7,355nm       7,850nm
787-9          290               7,635nm       8,300nm

And the battle becomes more interesting.

By the way, Ferpe's range was made before the aircraft actually flew and that was sometime in 2012. I would say it was a theoretical range as compared to actual range posted by Airbus. Same thing would be said about Boeing. It pretty much mirrors my calculations earlier at 36t for passengers and baggage's alone.

@Eurest I do understand that the A359-B789 comparison does not stop there. There are still plenty of things to consider other than what you stated that is considered by airlines. And their need is truly different from that of another airline's perspective.

For one, routes like MNL-JFK and HKG-JFK are never the same for the airline to consider the calculations of another by simply adding HKG-MNL sector in the equation. For example, CX flew a different route to LHR than what PR flew while inside China. And that would easily translate to 200-300nm deviation. The same rule will apply when PR starts JFK direct because it will pass by China going back to MNL.

I made an error in my calculations earlier as to cargo capacity of both the A359 and the B789. Payload should have been 62t and 59t respectively, weight wise. Which is pretty close. But that is not the same when we consider volume. In that respect I agree with your earlier calculations.  

[seven13]

No problem!
I would like to learn more from you guys actually, especially on the technical part.

I'm sorry to take some of your time, I am trying to digest the payload-range graph but I'm having a hard time interpreting the 2nd, 3rd and 4th point, care to explain in layman's term, anybody? I only understand that as an aircraft carries more weight, its range suffers (I hope I am correct). The lighter it is the longer range it can fly.

[Eurest]

The range you see quoted by Airbus or Boeing is the planes range but does not consider winds.
It's like saying my commute from home to work is 5 minutes, when in fact, it is usually longer because of traffic.
ESAD in the other hand considers winds, so if you take the car example the traffic is the winds.

As for Payload/Range, every carrier has specific Payload/Range charts because every delivered plane is different from each carrier.
The ones you see when you Google Payload/Range are nominal charts again.
It gives you an idea, but doesn't really specify much.
Why?
Let's look at EK's A380s, they have a 575T MTOW 399 seat version for 17 hour flights like DXB-LAX
EK has a lower MTOW variant for 10-12 hr mission like DXB-LHR with 427 seats
Finally, EK has a 557 seat 575T MTOW high density variant for short to medium haul

These are all configured differently, and thus will have specific charts

The one Airbus hands out is for its Catalogue A380, it uses the weight of the seats it uses on its Vanilla variant, but as you know each carrier selects their own seats and those vary in weight per model.

Aside from that Airbus also uses an assumed passenger&bag weight that is quite low, especially for the heavier Westerners. Airbus uses 95kg average, but EK would generally use something like 110kg

Other items that add weight are add-ons like a Cappucino maker, or extra carried water for F pax to use for showers.

EK now has a plane, far heavier than the one Airbus thought of with its nominal Payload/Range

Now flight ops calculates the fuel it needs to make the mission, plus adds reserves.
Now the plane is even heavier because of the mission fuel, so flight ops needs to add more fuel because of the extra weight of the mission fuel.
Why? Just physics.
So flight ops considers the weight of the mission fuel + carry fuel and checks if the plane is still within MTOW that it can fly
Now flight ops sees that there are headwinds. Instead of being able to cruise at Mach 0.85, you are now cruising at Mach .78
Say the A380 has 14hours worth of fuel, but it is now traveling less distance per hour because of the headwinds. You will only reach a shorter distance because of the winds
But, there's a cheat mode!
Let's take SQ's old SIN-EWR, the usual path is great circle up towards the northern Pacific over Canada and into EWR
But when there are headwinds over that region, SQ takes the usually longer route over Russia/Europe into the Northern Atlantic and then into EWR. But because of tailwinds, it becomes shorter.
To take the car example again, say you usually take the highway to work. But when there's traffic it may be faster to take an alternate route which is physically longer but has no traffic.

So Payload Range is basically
How far am I flying considering the winds or "traffic"
How many revenue pax are flying and how heavy are their bags?
How much water, catering, and crew do we have on board?
How heavy is the plane now?
Do I need to carry extra fuel for the weight?
Since passenger bags don't always eat up my LD3 positions, how much revenue cargo can I carry?

If a plane is heavy enough, it will no longer fill those unused LD3 positions with revenue cargo
If it is still too heavy to make the mission, the carrier will block off seats and will essentially decrease your revenue pax on board.
This is what happens to UA's EWR-HKG flight (B77E) as well as AA DFW-HKG (B77W) but they are not weight restricted on their return flights to the US mainland.

The most recent payload/range fiasco involved the A340-600
Airbus said it could do 16 hour missions, but at that time the new angle flat business seats were getting installed, and these were heavier than the models Airbus used in their nominal charts.
The result was Airbus had to pay these carriers reparations as they were not supplied the promised aircraft in the contract. Airbus did remedy this with the HGW variant but at the time it was too late as the B77W became the eagle scout of the skies
That's why I'm a bit skeptical about the A350 and JFK. Airbus has been guilty of promising too much in the past. If SQ needs an A359LR/HGW to do SIN-LAX, can PR really do MNL-JFK non stop both ways with just the A359 or are they getting the A359LR/HGW as well

Another skeptical party about Airbus is the Vstall+2 flyboys at CX. They are convinced with the A359 but are skeptical of the promises made for the A35J. CX operated just "6" A346's and quickly returned them to get B77Ws. This is the same CX that got the A343 over the B77E

[seven13]

A BIG BIG THANKS for this explanation. I always thought that each aircraft is made the same by the manufacturer. I didn't know that the specs of an aircraft may vary depending on which mission an airline intendeds to use it. I had a wrong impression on payload/range and I thought it's constant. The article provided makes more sense now using layman's terms.

Yup, I've read from the link you provided (Leeham) that A uses the 95kg/210lb assumed weight per pax and B on the other hand uses 110kg/240lb. I remember an episode of air crash investigation about an AA propeller aircraft crashed after take off due to tail heavy. It was attributed to using a higher assumed weight, if I remember correctly.

If this is now the case, why would JJB lean towards the A359 when in fact it cannot (taking into consideration key aspects like winds, installations etc.) make MNLJFK vv nonstop. JJB can be quoted: "Philippine Airlines now plans to use the savings from the cancelled A330-300 leases to fund new orders for long-haul aircraft. According to Bautista, Philippine Airlines currently prefers the A350-900 for its ability to fly Manila to New York non-stop without payload restrictions."

I wonder what's brewing within the departments involve. Lately, Airbus asked SQ to cancel 7 out from its 70 A350 orders; has there been any deferrals or cancellations from the Boeing side (aside from UA and KL) that seems to accommodate any upcoming PR orders, aside from NH's EIS flexibility?

Another noob questions, from Eurest's post on the previous page, ESAD on the return leg is higher than the actual distance, is it because it needs to reroute or make some detour because of possible headwinds on the the planned route to MNL? From the new ASA with Russia, I assume PR is now allowed to fly eastward through Siberian airspace to MNL from YYZ? The same as we are now allowed to fly through Siberian airspace enroute to LHR.