Airlines in the Philippines

[Arianespace]

If i may add something more to the equation on range calculations. Physics taught us that cars suffer the same resistance from wind as airplanes do only that they stay on the ground, while commute time can be equated with airspace congestion. The headwind factor actually needs to be compensated by two things. One is speed and the other time.

following Eurest Example, Instead of being able to cruise at Mach 0.85, you are now cruising at Mach .78 because of headwind causing more travel time. But then you are obligated to be at the destination airport at least on time because of closure which necessitates you to go faster to compensate for the lost speed and therefore time. End results affect fuel consumption both ways. Most airlines don't care now about the latter but some airlines I know particularly LH, and SQ still considers both and therefore more fuel burn for the trip.

Eurest wrote

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

Interesting proposition. Now I know where PR's inclination is coming from. I never really give much thought of it until now.

We do have three versions of the A359 currently, the base 268, 270, and 275t's.

The fourth iteration is the 280t which Airbus is now doing supposedly capable of flying 8600nm ESAD. Some theoritical estimates pegged its range at 9000nm. EIS is due 2018, PR's supposed delivery date.

I posted earlier the fuel load of the base frame at 236,000l. Interestingly, the new ones will have 256,000l. This product if estimates proved correct would benefit PAL the most for its fabled MNL-JFK vv. direct flight. At this stage it is still at Airbus drawing boards, although offered for sale since January of this year.

I think this is not the same HGW variant offered to SQ as it was posted 6 months later. And besides, offered range isn't still enough for the 20 hour flight. Airbus never categorically said so about the existing 280t which potentially could be ordered by PAL. Therefore, the 285t ACT variant probably would work wonders.

With the current A359 improvements, chances of B789 going to PAL becomes dim, more so when its actual payload range turned out to be almost 1000nm short than earlier published in 2006.

seven13 wrote

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.

PR could fly now if it want to. The bigger question is can it sustain YYZ traffic on its own?

[Eurest]

It's interesting you pointed out the A330 lease savings.

Another possibility is that PR has entered into a deal with lessors to return the A333s earlier than the full lease dates but acquire leases on newer aircraft.
SQ did a similar thing with Airbus, their A330s are on short lease until they receive their A350Regionals in addition to the A330s SQ received for the late A380
Some of PR's A330s are from Avolon and Avolon has 787-9 incoming deliveries as well

I'm trying to get the lease info from Airbus Financial services if those A340-300s are on 6 year leases or shorter
It harder to access financials from EU companies than US ones

As for why flights back to Manila are always longer, its always the winds. Even the flights to japan are affected. NRT-SFO can take around 8hrs but SFO-NRT usually takes 10 hrs.
The closer to the equator you get, the stronger or more prone to headwinds.
The polar route is less prone to headwinds, but does experience them time to time.
Another consideration for the Polar Route is your ETOPS diversion certified points, you must always be at your ETOPS limit for every part of the flight plan
Another consideration for JFK is NoKor airspace and the Taiwan divider.
PR has always stayed to the right of both over Japanese ATC area, but East Coast to China like PVG or HKG or ICN stay to the left over Chinese airspace.
Finally, aircraft that use the Polar Route need to have polar survival equipment like thermal suits for crew, signal kit, flashlights.
I'm not also sure if there are certification procedures, like familiarization flights with diversion airports for the Polar Route
Added weight, added crew training, added CAAP certification

[seven13]

Thanks for the additional explanation arianespace! Things are now more sensible to me. It now explains why the timetable always says a longer travel time back to MNL on transpac flights.

PR flying to YYZ tagged from YVR is enough, in fact they are reducing it to 3X a week after adding the 4th weekly flight this summer. Probably the interline with Westjet is doing good to them. Good to know that YYZMNL can now be direct given the Siberian route is now allowed.

On ETOPS range, PR crews have their flashlights with them in their crew seats. Well, they were issued trench coats for winter (I guess that does not count as thermal suits). Survival kits are onboard certain aircrafts with signalling kits in it.

Sorry for turning to another topic, speaking of the A330 returns, do you think it will still push through? Probably it will if Eurest's theory is correct regarding Avolon.

 I was hoping that the monoclass will be reconfigured to the 311 JJB was saying several months ago and the bi-class will now do the monoclass routes. With DXB, RUH, DMM and AUH only, 5 frames should be enough. Another 5 should cover some regional and medium haul routes (HKG, NRT, BKK, SYD, MEL, HNL). And SYD will once again be seeing the A340 this winter season and will connect to LHR on M-TH. I just wish that by the time SYD switches to A340, the A330 will under go cabin reconfiguration.

[Evodesire]

Now this is what you call a forums discussion!!! Let me just back read! Loving the information and facts! No bull like "If it were me...." type of sh*t!

[fd20]

If it were up to me, PAL should get an A380. Because Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways both have one.

Sounds familiar? Hehe.  Keep up the discussions, everyone.

[romantic_guy08]

With the propensity of PR to choose a high density configuration for it's aircraft, I doubt the A359 even the LR will reach JFK non-stop. The high seating config plus all those belly load/boxes will be a challenge. If they really want to do JFK nonstop, without taking any penalty hit, I think the should wait for the 7X...

BTW, I've noticed two monoclass A330s going to Beijing or was it Shanghai from CEB... Isn't there a maintenance base there? Any chance they're starting to retrofit them?

[Eurest]

Perhaps they are, there are HAECO subsidiaries in Xiamen and Shangdong, as well as Tianjin
And HAECO does make their own aircraft seats
I remember PR sent some A320s, the B744 and the first 2 B777s that needed C checks during the SMC days to China
I believe Arianespace mentioned LTP was charging PR more than say QF or AF w/c prompted the move to China

The Americans usually send their planes to China for cabin retrofit, like DL when they retrofitted their B744, B767 and A330s with lie-flat direct aisle seats as well as int'l WiFi

HAECO's new slimline Y seats

[Evodesire]

fd20 wrote

If it were up to me, PAL should get an A380. Because Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways both have one.

Sounds familiar? Hehe.  Keep up the discussions, everyone.

If it were me, PAL should put 40" AVOD in all the seats and have a swimming pool because Emirates only has a shower...

[Arianespace]

LTP indeed was charging more. That was the reason RSA moved fleet maintenance to China. After PAL was returned to the LT Group the contract was not renewed. It instead entered contract with LTP again notwithstanding the higher costs. After all its their company.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pal-awards-two-year-mro-contract-to-lufthansa-technik-410119/

By the way, the monoclass PR A330 are now a common feature in China doing charter runs. Even 5J's A330 is doing the same run. You can actually see them fly midnight and early dawn via FR24 from points in MNL and CEB.

As to the actual re-configuration I don't know if PR secured already the consent of the aircraft lessor with respect to amendments. Some contracts have provisions against changes. And if it's allowed, cost for changes are normally shouldered by the airline. And funding this changes is not good for the airline financial wise being an extra-ordinary expense item tagged to a brand new aircraft.

[seven13]

PR is currently operating 2 charter flights to NKG and PVG from CEB. It operates every 4 days. This should be the the one that you notice in FR24.

AC just reconfigured its 777 to heavier configuration. Other operators now offer 400+ seats on the 777. PR will be on the middle IMO

[Eurest]

Even QR (short to medium haul routes, I suspect MNL will see it soon if not already) and NH (all US mainland bound B77W, EU B77W routes are still 9 abreast) have moved to 10 abreast B77Ws and the US carriers are even retrofitting their B77E to 10 abreast as well

And we're also seeing more 9 abreast A330s for SV, the Chinese carriers and Lion Air longhaul
Y is not only more crowded, the seat cushions are basically non existent.

It's good to hear PR is getting more charter traffic from the Chinese mainland.
BTW, the ATR flights of DG are now in T4 right? What about the Q300/Q400 of 2P, is it still at T3?

It seems some of the available 2017 787 slots have been taken, I think these are the cancelled Air Berlin slots
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/39623-qantas-orders-an-octet-of-b787-9s

[Evodesire]

Cebu Pacific A330 seats 436 pax but gets a 59% average load factor for its SYD flights.

Question, is this somehow profitable, break even, or a loss?

[seven13]

This the AC 777 I posted earlier.
400-450 seats in Y is very very cramped! I see that it has more Y than PR plus Y+ and 2 seats less in J. They also installed new business class seats. That's one heavy 77W there. And I've always thought PR always installs a heavy configuration on its aircraft. And if I'm not mistaken EK sends its 3-4-3 77W here, I'm guessing EY as well. No wonder QR will follow after. Too bad NH will be foregoing the 3-3-3 layout. And 9 abreast for the A330 isn't a good one. It's so hard to move around.

The other poster from the neighboring thread (who happen to mention the 789 IG post) also mentioned that PR shall announce the order come Sep.

[Eurest]

If the 5J SYD flights were profitable, it would still be 5x weekly and not 4x
It may not be as bad as fuel costs are very low, but as for long-haul profits are concerned, 5J is looking at the Middle East to make them money and not SYD

That said, there are cost advantages that 5J enjoys as an LCC
They engage in direct sales, so no ticket office to pay for esp. wages for employees or for the travel agent network payouts.
This actually made it harder to grow into new long-haul markets like the middle east.
Unlike PR w/c had Travel Agent networks which the expat employers utilize which resulted in better load factors for PR

They also don't need to maintain much of an airport presence, 2 or 3 employees to oversee how the contractor for the ground handling services fulfills its contracts.
No need to pay for a business class lounge as well.
Its 436 seat A330 also has less galleys, and I do believe less lavatories as well.
It's catering is fewer as the meals are reduced to the drink bottle and the ordered meal.
While catering on PR, expands to a little more variety. I believe SYD, MEL, DRW, BNE flights still enjoy bread, salad and the dessert pastry. Though I know catering was reduced compared to the SMC days when Magnolia ice cream was served ex-MNL
They carry less on-aircraft water and rely on water bottles for coffee and tea.
Instant coffee is also lighter than ground beans, creamer and sugar. They also don't carry a diverse selection of liquid refreshments.
So lower additional ancillary weight means more opportunity for revenue cargo or lower fuel requirements to make the mission

5J A330s also have a higher utilization rate than PR's A330, so the lease costs are spread apart to more flights
Plus 5J's better financials pre2013 make for lower risk potential for lessors which equate to lower lease rates, assumed of course.
Then of course 5J's employee pay structure is lower.

5J no longer has the fuel burn advantage since all 3 SYD operators use A333s. That said, the younger A333s of PR and 5J do have better fuel burn than the QF ones. It could grow as large as 4%

[seven13]

To add, if basing on their A320 aircraft routes, 5J should have only 9 crew to fly their longhaul flights versus PR's 11 man crew on their bi-class. That's 2 less crew to pay. Plus, one has to take account how many of those 257/436 passengers paid for a "regular" 5J fare and how many promo takers. If 50% of the 59% LF paid for a promo fare, I doubt it will be that much profitable. I believe they still offer different BCCs Y still being the highest

[Eurest]

AC and AF already had 450 seat B777's for a few years. AC operated them from YUL and then to more routes even to HKG I believe this summer.
The 458 AC B77W started as exclusively as YUL-CDG, but it started making so much money for AC they tried it on other routes
You should look into FlyerTalk and see how people love these birds
NH still use the 2-4-3 (love this Y config) and 3-3-3 B77W for EU flights, It's SFO, LAX, ORD, IAH, IAD and JFK which get the 3-4-3 IOJ birds

The EK and EY B77W that get sent to MNL are in 400 seat variants as well, with EK sending their 427 seat 2 class and EY sending 412
Air France has a "Carribean" B77W with 468 seats
SU's B77W are 402 seats

PR operates the least dense, two class 10 abreast B77W
That standard 3 class B77W that is meant to operate the full range at max payload is around 350-360
I actually think the 10 abreast B77W config PR got was because it was given by Boeing since it was conversions from the cancelled 2004 end of the production line B744
Boeing wanted to give PR something as close to the B744 it was supposed to get

The experience has a lot to do with the width
10 abreast B77W is 16.7" seats
9 abreast A330 is 16.5" seats
9 abreast A350 is 18"
10 abreast A350 is 16.8'

You also have to consider how thin the armrests are as they will tell if you rub shoulders or not

[seven13]

I see.
And I thought PR has always been cramped. I guess if PR will be configuring its 77W to 400 seats, it'll have a hard time doing transpac flights westward back to MNL due to headwinds and it'll need to do a techstop at GUM.

Pre-SMC era, PR had to do a GUM techstop to MNL but it was eliminated post-SMC. Did they have to block seats for the 747 to make it nonstop or it was a LTG decision to always do a GUM techstop to MNL? But in the first place, could the 747 do it nonstop considering the headwinds in full capacity with the boxes in its belly?

[Arianespace]

I once recalled a conversation between a PR engineer and CAAP check pilot, and this was when they ordered the 77W, circa 2005, before delivery of their first plane, that the seat numbers were designed to cross the Pacific both ways without stopping at GUM and it has plenty of J seats to addressed demands of their market. I really didn't have the idea why is it so until later on JJB announced when the plane arrived that they are targeting the OFW market from North America who are willing to pay an extra dime just to avoid airport transfer inconveniences, and that differentiation would not bring them material gain if they are still going to do tech stops.

It should have been brought to the test but we were downgraded in 2007. What is interesting about that statement is that JJB never brought the B744 to fly direct westward until RSA came in 2012 and changed philosophy at PR, and then the 77w flew as its replacement in 2013. Sometimes you wonder what took them so long to realize that an even bigger revenue lies by forgoing the tech-stops.

Anyway, I am sharing this because It might give you an idea on how they think about seats relative to range and why 400 seats will not be possible for them at least for the 77w or the new mid-sized long haul.

Evodesire wrote

Cebu Pacific A330 seats 436 pax but gets a 59% average load factor for its SYD flights.

Question, is this somehow profitable, break even, or a loss?

Profitability is a relative term. An airline can still earn decent revenue notwithstanding low loads as mentioned.

We should remember that airline business is not entirely in the business of transporting people. They are also engaged in the business of transporting goods and printed matters.

So if 5J happens to carry only half the number of seats, it doesn't necessarily mean that its already losing on the route. Otherwise, they would have cut its lifeline like DMM. They are not shy of cutting red routes.

In a similar fashion, a fully loaded flight like for example HA ex MNL doesn't always equate to profitability.

[Eurest]

The 744 really does not have the legs to do LAX-MNL on those heavy headwinds days, it's the same reason QF opted for the higher MTOW variant 744ER which QF dubbed as Longreach for the return LAX-MEL missions
At Max Zero Fuel Weight, the 744 has a range of 5200nm, as compared to the 789 and 77W that have a 5700nm range

I can't give much info pre-SMC days but opting to skip the tech stop and offload revenue cargo did a lot to bring down costs as well as ease the strain on the already maintenance heavy B744
The tech stops did a lot of things that were costly
i) Additional landing&takeoff cycles also eat up the book value of the AC as well as strain the engines, and also leads to faster maintenance work as heavy checks are dependent on cycles and not just flight hours
ii) Extended crew time, I believe the tech stops added 2-3 hours of crew time. Though I am unfamiliar with PR if they are time based or mission based wages
iii) Add'l landing fees, parking fees, refueling costs, as well as catering and other airport services fees at GUM or HNL
The biggest criticism during the SMC days was aircraft utilization.
However, what good was putting the B77W for HKG or NRT if it was not doing ULH missions.
This is where RSA's famous Ferrari to the grocery quip comes from.
It also does not do well for the 744 to do the short regional ops if it adds cycles and flight hours which adds to more maintenance costs. And by these times the B744s were very costly to operate
Now though, with the B77W's doing longhaul missions, it makes sense to put them on short hops since the add'l cycles is offset with the long flight hours
There are other philosophies that SMC did differently from the LTG group
One of the more evident ones is to choose engines that offer the best performance for the airframe (IAEV2500&Trent700)instead of engines which are cost effective maintenance wise (GE CF6).
Of course not going with CF6's also had other reasons

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

There are other philosophies that SMC did differently from the LTG group
One of the more evident ones is to choose engines that offer the best performance for the airframe (IAEV2500&Trent700)instead of engines which are cost effective maintenance wise (GE CF6).
Of course not going with CF6's also had other reasons

I don't know much about international alliance powering the A321, but I would certainly discuss the A330 power plants flying the Philippine-based A330s.  

More than 70% market share can't be a wrong decision. There must be a reason to it. Engine choice however goes far from simply technical. Economic considerations plays a major role, particularly on leases and resale values.

I do believe Rolls Royce have a better engine than GE. Technology showed us the way. Its got better performance and has the lowest maintenance costs. Probably the reason why PR, CX, SQ and other airlines such as 5J opted for this engine.

I can basically sum up the engine order why it went to England instead of Ohio.

When the A330 family started off with a low 212,000kg MTOW which PAL got, the 68k CF6 engines were just fine until improvements were introduced by Airbus that when weight grew to 220k to 230k, airlines went to Pratt for its 69 k PW4168 power plant introduced in 1997. And then engine developments of both PW and GE stalled banking in 2YK that orders for the A330 will die soon with the development of B7E7.

Well, it never happened, while Rolls Royce managed to introduced the 71k Trent in 2007. While Pratt made strides playing catch up to improve its 4168, it only managed to do so at 70 k with its PW4170 in 2009. Airbus improvements also never stopped there as it simple went further to 232k and the latest 242 ton variant in 2015.


Philippine Airlines Rolls Royce Trent 700 on Reverse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11750406/Rolls-Royce-wins-two-new-contracts-worth-2.2bn.html

From there, (2010 orders to present) It simply blew the competition away in favor of the UK manufacturer, and that was when it started raking new orders accounting now to almost 60% of the market for the new variants. Trent improvements never stopped in 2007. The Trent 700EP was introduced in 2009 and is the current build standard for the 235k offering 1.3% better fuel burn than the original engine.

The Trent 700EP2 was announced at the Farnborough air show in 2012 that powers the 242 variant. It is the new build standard of the A330 from 2015. It improved fuel burn by a further 1% from existing Trent 700EP that powers the 235t version of PAL.

While for the rest of the engine makers, there was nothing new other than the CF6-80E1A4/B certified in 2004, and PW4170 in 2009.