Airlines in the Philippines

[Eurest]

I was surprised that MAD was the agreed upon beyond point from TLV, I would have thought PR would have wanted a "Roman Catholic" pilgrimage flight.

The biggest stumbling block for TLV-MNL is the flight path, having to go around the ME areas would make the return flight around 13-14hrs on an A330
Ideally, PR would need a similarly sized aircraft with a faster cruise mach

W/c among the Indian points is the most likely stop for TLV?

[tigz]

Yah, I'm surprised with CAPAs statement on the Airbus purchase, I mean if its in the bag with PAL and decsision confirmed then what's the hold up to the public?

[Arianespace]

Eurest wrote

I was surprised that MAD was the agreed upon beyond point from TLV, I would have thought PR would have wanted a "Roman Catholic" pilgrimage flight.

The biggest stumbling block for TLV-MNL is the flight path, having to go around the ME areas would make the return flight around 13-14hrs on an A330
Ideally, PR would need a similarly sized aircraft with a faster cruise mach

W/c among the Indian points is the most likely stop for TLV?

The pilgrimage flight is seasonal. It would perhaps be enough to have charters for this route rather than scheduled.

Actually, PH airlines doesn't have problems with overflight issues found in ME carriers. That's why I said previously the best bet for this route should be FCO-TLV-MNL. Even if PR has 5th freedom rights at IST to TLV, traffic to IST would not be enough to support TLV.

On another hand, TLV is reachable via DEL or BOM on A321LR. I just posted recently the A321LR planned routes of PR in the previous pages. Only El AL is flying the route to BOM on B763. Perhaps DEL could do wonders like CNS on its route to MNL. If PR haven't figure, then why consider DEL for A321LR?

  

[Eurest]

BOM, DEL, BLR, & PER should be doable with the plain A321NEO, as it should only be 5.5 to and 7.5 hrs back
I'm thinking it will only actually be SYD & MEL that will need the A321LR's 8 hr capabilities

Perhaps PR is eyeing the A321LR for pilot contract reasons?
So they can have the medium-haul A321 pilots on a separate contract?
How are PR pilot's contract structured anyways?
Do the A320 pilot contracts have a scope clause limiting them to around 2000mi?

Perhaps it's the A321LR standard seat config of 206 for max range while the vanilla A321NEO is restricted to 185 seats for max range.

Airbus was guaranteeing AC the A321LR for smaller EU airports from YYZ like BER

[seven13]

My bad on the5th freedom point from TLV.
It seems like EU is still quite far from PR's radar. I hope PR would at least enter into a codeshare agreement with other airlines flying XXX-EU route.

Is PR planning to send the A321LR to SYD/MEL? I've also read it in A.net about the A321LR going to SYD. It would really be awesome if PR can grow in the OZ market when it plans to resume PER and possibly start ADL service upon the 321lr's entry to service. Does anybody have any idea if DRW can be served as a direct point separately from BNE? Would it have enough demand to sustain DRW?

[Solblanc]

On the EU routes, I keep forgetting to post this, but anyway, 2013 data on average economy-class fares between MNL and select EU points:

LHR: 635
FRA: 636
CDG: 804
AMS: 606

This is probably the reason why CDG was really high on the list for a nonstop flight. But that's 2013 data. We've given away more entitlements to ME3 carriers and Turkish airlines since then, so that number could've gone down for all we know.

[Eurest]

I was asked about ACN-PCN and how it relates to aircraft and runways

MNL has 114 F/D/W/U for 6/24 (does these 2004 ratings still hold true after Airbus and EK certified the A380? I heard their was a runway technical certification)

has a Pavement Classification Number of 114

a pavement subgrade category CBR% D category, which means its' soil is very low load bearing

a maximum tyre pressure rating of W, which allows for High tyre pressures exceeding 217psi, soon to be umlimited

its U rating for pavement design evaluation method means the figures were achieved on historical data on aircraft that used the runway

For MNL @ 114 F/D/W/U

A359  (268T MTOW) - 110
B789  (228T MTOW) - 117
B77W (352T MTOW) - 120

For CGK @ 120/R/D/W/T comparison

A359  (268T MTOW) - 96
B789  (228T MTOW) - 104
B77W (352T MTOW) - 131

One things for sure, we don't know what A359 variant PR is getting, and that's assuming PR is getting the A359
So we don't know the ACN for that variant as well
There are overload operations that allows for ACN to exceed runway PCN, and Boeing has a different methodology that they developed for the B777. Unless the B77W is MTOW restricted at NAIA

[Arianespace]

It should be 120 by now due to the recent asphalt overlay of the airport's 6/24 runway in 2014. PCN calculations is a relative science. And there is no uniform implementation as to adoption of its standards worldwide. NAIA has approved B773W departure that exceeded the published PCN since 2004, with PR bound LAX as the most heavy aircraft and everything was fine for the runway. And I don't think it was at MTOW. The overlay was for ICAO compliance purposes to accommodate the tire loading of the triple seven.  If it can handle the triple seven, there is no reason why it can't for the A350.

I can understand CGK needs as its farthest heavy route is AMS probably with full belly. LAX might be longer than AMS but its flight from MNL is mostly helped by the wind all year long than say from CGK.

By the way, a simple differentiation between rigid and flexible is that the latter is always asphalt.

[Eurest]

120 is reasonable given the multitude of B77W operators. Those ME variants with 400+ pax as well as Revenue Cargo should more than often than not hit max taxi weight

Curiously CASA puts the B789's ACN for sub-type D at 119
That maybe more relevant as I've heard that CAAP closely follows Australia's ops

[Arianespace]

Because it was the Australians that made it for us. So we should have almost identical standards with them.

[tigz]

ACN-PCN! We did have lively exchange way back then at the other forum but indeed the equation and values can be complicated so backtracking from what I learned and to simplify the interpretation, the Aircraft Classification Number may only equal but ideally can not exceed the PCN number to keep the integrity of the pavement, that is of course if majority of the aircraft using the surface are with the highest Classification, say the A380, but then there is also the heavyweight Antonovs which can exceed the live and dead weight of the largest commercial liner. As for the PCN, the five part code allows you top breakdown between rigid and flexible(A,B\C,D), subgrade strength, tire pressure,(w,x\y,z) and method of evaluation( T or U). So basically if I'm a pilot looking at the AIP, I will simply need to know the A C N vs P C N and I'm good to land. The bearing capacity of topping plus subgrade is probably the least they would be interested. Most aviation enthusiast will probably not care much about airfield engineering but there is substantial difference for an airbus A320 turning in an angled taxiway as opposed to a perpendicular one and this is why we need the corner radiuses to ease the pressure both on the tire and pavement itself. A lot of contrated loads happens on this turns and most often this corners are neglected. On one hand, some 35m wide runways have been taking the brunt of jets taking tight turns so if a wide runway can't be achieved, the turn around pads are a necessity. Most of the trunkline airports back then with BAC-111s operating have them with remnants until today like today like Legazpi.

[Arianespace]

This is a classic example of bearing overload. All attributed to C-17 operations. Similar circumstances happened at ZAM airport years earlier prompting USAF to overlay the runway.

tigz wrote

Most aviation enthusiast will probably not care much about airfield engineering but there is substantial difference for an airbus A320 turning in an angled taxiway as opposed to a perpendicular one and this is why we need the corner radiuses to ease the pressure both on the tire and pavement itself. A lot of contrated loads happens on this turns and most often this corners are neglected. On one hand, some 35m wide runways have been taking the brunt of jets taking tight turns so if a wide runway can't be achieved, the turn around pads are a necessity. Most of the trunkline airports back then with BAC-111s operating have them with remnants until today like today like Legazpi.

Asphalt integrity is only good as the mixture itself. Most of them in the countryside, sad to say, happens to be sub par. So you will always see those deformations at the turn-around pad.



Mind you, this happens in America. So you see we're not alone.

[Eurest]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/philippines-pal-airbus-group-boeing-idUSL3N13J17H20151124

Nov 24 Philippine Airlines Inc (PAL) is in talks with Airbus Group SE and Boeing Co to buy as many as 12 aircraft and will decide on the purchase before the end of the year, the flag carrier's President Jaime Bautista told Reuters.

PAL in August had said it was planning to buy eight planes, but Bautista said the amount had increased to cater to growing demand for long-haul flights to the United States and Europe.

PAL will choose one supplier, and is considering the twin-engine Airbus 350 or Boeing 787 aircraft, Bautista said late on Monday.

The airline will put firm orders for six aircraft worth around $1 billion for delivery in 2017 and 2018, with the option to buy six more jets for 2019 and 2020 delivery, he added.

It seems the sale in the stake of Abacus coupled with increase revenues and passenger loads have merited the increase to 6+6 from 6+2

The list price for a B787-9 is 250M$, while the vanilla A350-900 is at 300M$. Prices can be discounted as much as 50% from list price

[Arianespace]

Old news story.

What is new is the 6 possible options. Never heard of it. I know only of about two more in exchange for A330 concessions. More interesting is the Offeror. There is only one Manufacturer with that habit. And they did brought the plane to MNL. And they are known to give discounts which the other one despise

And to complete the whole story, an airliner from the Gulf just validated the manufacturer's data and it turned out more efficient than every one thought it could be.

So, could it be that? or are we seeing a different PR direction?

The way I see it, it's gonna be an all American market, with the 6 options comprising a different weight variant. We could see a different fleet for JFK, ORD, and YYZ altogether and another fleet for YVR, LAX, SFO, LHR, etc., although technically, both can fly the farther route.

[tigz]

The picture taken at TAC says it all. Its not the aircraft but the manner the topping is applied. Obviously there is lack of bonding on the sub-srface, I don't see any any signs of scraping or coursing for adhesion. Since this happened on the threshold, I suppose the enormous pressure excerted by the wheels clustered under the belly caused this. The tires effectively acted like a screw dislodging the asphalt. If this were high impact landings, would have occured by the aiming point marker( large bar stripes) or touchdown target. I hope the other overlay projects were prepared properly and closely administered by CAAP. TACs inferior if not non existent shore protection is also compoiunding the matter.

[tigz]

So the dye is not cast yet? Anet is all abuzz with the A350 acquisition although some have reservations. With lack of formal announcement( and perhaps the hesitation from PAL) would make me think there's a glimmer for the airline to turn towards Boeing!

[Evodesire]

November 27... From there, only one will be chosen to wear PAL's colors. Will it be the A350 or B787?

[Eurest]

Talked about the A359HGW/B789 with a couple of friends in the industry and here's what I can remember from the talk

The B789 is already doing a mission close to its' design range and 600mi farther than LAX-MNL and flying close to 16hrs with UA98 at almost 8000mi.
It's comfortable at FL400 so there'll be less headwinds making MNL-JFK viable especially via Polar
UA has a 252 seat B789 but with 42J, PR will most likely have fewer J but still retain around 250 seats
Boeing is also the Polar Route pioneer so if they say it can, it probably will.
Given the published delivery dates, the only likely scenario for PR to get 6 new Boeing in 2017 is that some may be B77L as interim lift, which would be the same offer Boeing made to DL when it wanted 2017 delivery dates

The A359's wingbox is also fairly large allowing either 141,000L, 156,000L and 165,000L and the amount varying will be dictated by the sensor's cutoff by the computer.
So the A359, A35J and A359LR in fact all use the same wingbox
The only thing Airbus really needs to do for the ULR in 2018 is the MTOW increase to 280T
The most likely A359HGW for PR is an MTOW at 275T and a 156,000L fuel capacity thus the 2017 availability

QF's A380 which were early built variants are already capable of the 17hr DFW-SYD flights so it is reasonable to expect Airbus fulfilling its claims on a fairly new aircraft.
SIN-EWR was 19hrs partly because of the slower cruise mach of the A345 @ 0.83, so the A359LR would complete the mission faster. Consequently MNL-JFK would be doable with just the HGW variant as flying the same amount of time on the faster A359 gets you farther than an A345
It is safe to assume, that JFK-MNL will likely be 15.15-16.5hrs block time on the A359 and that MNL-JFK will be 14 to 15.5 hrs compared to 17hrs on a B77L
CX JFK-HKG usually still goes Japan-Alaskan jetstream thus its at 15hrs with a B77W and DL's JFK-NRT at 14hrs is with the slower B744

From an economics perspective, MNL-JFK would only require around 90-95tons of fuel, as opposed if PR would opt for a B77L now, it would need close to the 120tons based on the B77L YYZ-HKG fuel consumption

[tigz]

Does the weight plus extra fuel burn get compensated by the payload vs the lighter 789? Unless this is all about availabilty and price for the next year, I'm not seeing a clear logic on PALs preferrence on the A350HGW. I would rather have PAL consistently pack the 250 seating on this long routes than go aggressive for 300+pax with heavier aircraft. There is much debate in the aviation forums between these two long range contenders but I have yet to deduce a more realistic tale of the tape so we see head to head comparison! Unfortunately the discussions are inconclusive due to the many variables and lack of information of the airline requirement itself. I often see the operational requirements of PAF as an example and this is when you smell corruption soon after the award. Only someone privy with PAL on this purchase would probably be able to leak the LOI!

[Eurest]

PR's A350HGW will most likely have a configuration in between SQ's 253 and QR's 283 seat
I doubt we'll see something as dense as AA's 315 seater especially for a ULH build

The 787 still has a lot of issues making it not as attractive considering the ULH missions PR is eyeing it for
There's the GEnx water ingestion issues in monsoon environments [though PR will most likely opt for RR's for better performance], there's the battery issue which delayed the EDTO 330, the generator shutdown bug etc
Then there's the specific issues in handling the aircraft like it requiring 2x the electricity from GPUs, there's maintenance having to get used to the e-Enabled tools such as the maintenance laptop which can generate around 500GB of data to sifted through after an 10hr mission, etc

As for the A359 we don't know the issues yet as VN 11's 13 hr flight is the longest route it currently takes. Once DOH-JFK & BOS start, then we'll have a batter idea of its dispatch reliability as DOH-MUN being only 2500mi doesn't really indicate the performance capabilities of the aircraft

I too would really prefer the B789's over the A359, but for a small carrier like PR operating it on a ULH Polar route, the issues may be much to handle at its current state. In 10 years time though I fully expect the B787-10 to replace the current A333s for ME, ANZ and regional Asia flights