Airlines in the Philippines

[Arianespace]

tigz wrote

Only someone privy with PAL on this purchase would probably be able to leak the LOI!

That is very confidential even to the board. They have been burned once from the A330 orders. If it were RSA he would have said it even before financing was finalize.

Eurest wrote

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

This was confirmed last night by a mole. It will operate in two configurations. Well, that is the plan. As to what seat count we don't know yet. So we are looking for 315 and less dense 250-280 with the latter group heading eastbound I guess.

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

I'm sure those flights have even better data to validate Airbus claims. QR itself acknowledges it and they are operators of both aircraft.

What is good about the aircraft they said is that your fifth flight, say MNL-LAX is literally free. That's how efficient this plane is.

[Arianespace]

And now some real news

Cebu Pacific Air is scheduled to launch a four-times-weekly service between Manila and Guam on March 15, 2016. Guam is the airline’s first US destination.

The Guam route will operate every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday, using Airbus A320.

The Manila-Guam service departs at 3:45am and arrive in Guam at 10:15am. The Guam-Manila flight will depart Guam at 12:30pm and arrive in Manila at 2:55pm.

One small leapfrog in the big pond, and one headache for UA.

[tigz]

So it appears the choice of PAL is written all over the wall now, and the announcement will just be anything but announcement. Did you say fifth flight free? Does this imply if both are loaded same ton of pax, fuel, cargo, the 789 expends more fuel than the A350HGW? That's quite a difference and runs contrary to Boeings claims. Mind you, these two aerospace manufacturers would never claim inferiority than the other and that's just typical on any business.

[Eurest]

It took 5J just 4 years from the first news article that they stated they were to launch GUM

http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/13942-cebu-pacific-to-launch-first-us-route-to-guam-in-april-2013

I think it'll be PR market share being affected more than UA as the GUM-MNL flights usually carry FF pax as well as the Island Hopper users that use the MNL connect to go to NRT for the flight back to the mainland US

P2500 though is a very enticing fare

[tigz]

Cheap fare for this more than 3hr segment. Could hurt PAL if they keep it this way, but certainly its a promotion.

[tigz]

D-Day today!!!??? Nov.27, drum rooollll.....

[Eurest]

I was thinking of the long-haul fleet utilization in 2017 and the 6 options do make sense

2 B77W doing daily LAX rotations
2 B77W doing daily SFO rotations
2 B77W doing the second 4x a week LAX and second 3x a week SFO on alternating days
2 B77W doing the daily YVR run plus new US 5th freedom point 5x a week

2 A343 replacements doing daily JFK
2 A343 replacements doing daily LHR [a new RR deal for struggling Rolls-Royce for TXWB or T1000 should help PR secure the final 2 slots to make the service daily]
2 A343 replacements doing 2x or 3x a week YYZ and the 3x or 4x a week CEB-LAX on alternating days

That's a pretty tight utilization, so going for 6 more options as soon as 2018 makes sense as it gets PR the 2 aircraft it needs for tech/ops spare, if it wants, leaving the remaining 4 aircraft options for growth
That is still pretty conservative and not similar to the late 90's massive expansion

For prospective new US routes based on the 2009-2013 census



Actually surprised San Diego could probably support a 4x or 5x a week MNL-SAN flight

It seems the data suggests we would see a IAD/DCA first before MIA. I always thought Texas would be higher.

[seven13]

Question, if these birds will primarily do longhaul flights, they have the whole day in MNL (excpet for PR118/720 which departs noontime), weren't previous discussions mentioned that if these birds stay on ground, the company loses money? However, when RSA took place the 747 were pulled out from regional routes, A330 were pulled out from domestic sectors (except GES) to reduce cycles since they're in their later years already. When the newer aircraft came in, same aircraft utilization is enforced. Did this happen because there is a surplus in aircarft compared to pre-SMC? Would the less cycles of the 777 result to a lower maintenance cost during their maintenance period compared to when these birds have more cycles upon having their maintenance check?

[Eurest]

Aircraft utilization is vital for leased aircraft, as you are paying for them monthly you want to be able to make money to offset the costs of the aircraft.
If the aircraft are owned, like much of the initial new built A333s were, you may want to limit flights to maintain the book value of the aircraft especially if you want to attract strategic investors which RSA was trying to do.
The plan was also not to incur a lot of expensive D checks or C4/C8 checks as most of the longhaul fleet was about to do so. So the newer built B77W were parked so the expensive D check or engine overhauls would not fall on the same fiscal year.
Parking some of the B77W also allowed PR to only need 1 new build GE90-115 that fiscal year
Remember the year PR posted such a huge loss even though revenue was higher? That was in part to the retirement of the old widebodies. Imagine if costs of heavy maintenance checks were added.
Any investor would be scared of as the add'l maintenance costs would then eat up the new found revenue from operating the more efficient A321s where the B744s/A333s/A343s once did.

For the new long-haul fleet, scheduling will play a vital part in proper utilization.
You will need the shorter regional routes not just to make money but to balance the flight cycles with the flight hours.
However, you have to keep in mind the add'l maintenance requirements for aircraft for ETOPS dispatch does take longer than regular line maintenance.

As a rough example:
You have RP-C7775 arriving from SFO at around 0400, it gets fully unloaded at 0455 ready to be towed to LTP
Arrives at LTP hanger say 0525, line maintenance now takes for 3 hrs and finishes at 0825.
It gets towed back to T2 for the PR730 to BKK. Say it arrives T2 gate at 0855
Flies out at 0940 returns at T2 gate 1810. Is fully unloaded at 1855.
Is now towed to remote stand for add'l long-haul ETOPS dispatch maintenance, does not have to be at the LTP premises unless there is a major fix required if something was reported during BKK ops.
So arrives at hotel remote stand at 1910 gets some love and then towed back to T2 gate at 2005 for the 2100 flight to LAX

In this scenario RP-C7775 is properly utilized with enough allowance for maintenance.
But as you can see, if something needs to be replaced, the plane may in fact do the 00:50 flight to YVR-JFK instead or the 2300 flight doing SFO again. Though ideally, you want an aircraft to operate on differing stage lengths every day.
This presents another advantage of twin engine widebodies, imagine having to boroscope 4 engines instead of just 2, albeit very, very large twos unless its the TXWB or T1000 which aren't as huge as the GE90s

[Arianespace]

PR once did a morning flight to LAX until they returned it to night time. That would have been the ideal set up for twice daily operation, which by the way require only 3 frames of 77W. That time 2 B77W and 1 A340.

The problem with that schedule apparently is the load of the morning flight which appears to be lower than if it were to travel at night. Don't know the logic of that but that was the reason why they return the former schedule.

My guess is the return flight in the evening which transpac passenger feels more uncomfortable than say early morning arrival. I would like to argue that it was the A340, but no. Something doesn't add up on why is it so. Personally, I prefer that booted morning flight going to the States.  


Now, If we go by Eurest example that would easily translate to six frames for 2xD LAX and SFO alone, with the other two heading YVR rotation.

I reckon the six smaller ones will take care of JFK, IAD, YYZ, LHR and CEB

[seven13]

Thanks for this clarification. I had the wrong idea that maintenance is done after a particular length of time. So different maintenance check is done depending on the cycles a particular frame has done and not by a specific period of time, correct? So the current management just carried on what SMC had started. Wonder why didn't the current ones thought of it during the pre-SMC days?


@Eurest, didn't you mention that YVR would be better off using the capacity of the A340? In your previous post, the additional 2 77W would do a YVR run (which Arianespace also thought of), I believe you put into consideration the possible room for growth?

One more thing, PR mentioned that they are restarting the Kangaroo route (PR213/PR214), thus sending the A340 to SYD for a more common product. I think we all believe here that once the new longhaul fleet is announced, one of its destination is LHR; would you think it will also be sent to SYD for a common product if PR is trying to capture some hoppers between the 2 continents?



@Arianespace, I don't have any supporting data to prove my claim but when CI and BR started their 2nd LAX/SFO run, I believe they timed it several hours before their first flights that leaves TPE near midnight. None of which left TPE in the morning. CI6 leaves at 1700H while CI8 at 2350H; BR12 at 1825H, BR2 at 1920H and BR16 at 2355H for TPELAX. Maybe the market wants or prefers an evening departure doing transpacific flights. It also allows ample connection from both points versus when operating an early departure from MNL and LAX.

[Arianespace]

You may want to add to that CX flight that leaves at midnight. You'll be surprised who most of their passengers are. I noticed them twice already in HK when our CX flight to MNL was delayed. I also mentioned in the other forum a while back that the plane we rode to HKG, a 77W MNL sleeper was connecting to LAX at 10:00am and we're already there at 8:00am, and with my connection at 12nn I also got plenty of opportunity to look who their LAX passengers were and most Filipino faces I know comes from our earlier flight.

Meanwhile, those in Japan and Korea, and particularly those American carriers has daylight departures. Could these comprises mostly the J class crowd?

[seven13]

Not surprising, CX is the de facto carrier of the Filipinos as you have mentioned. CX880 departs at 2345H (summer schedule), the same time bank as PR, CI and BR, but the rest of its flights departs daytime: CX898: 0930H, CX884: 1255H and CX882: 1635H. Could it be that the three daytime flights are placed to compete with OZ, KE and other flights for the J crowd? SQ's HKGSFO is timed at 2340H and NRTLAX at 1850H.

Could it be a trend or a pattern or a preference, that bulk of the passengers on transpacific flights would like to depart in the evening from Asia (with an exception of CX in the region).

[Eurest]

Maintenance differs from carrier to carrier and not everyone does the same A, C & D (for non-Airbus) checks or even have the same intervals

The most common and frequent maintenance is the one done on the cabin.
I'm not sure if PR does this but carpets are thoroughly vacuumed at the origin hub as accumulated dust can add 1T of weight.
Some carriers also opt to steam clean the seats as well, a practice that became popular after the Bird Flu scare
Some things that are listed on A checks are usually separated from the actual A check so that the aircraft is not out of operation for very long time. The shorter the frequent A check the better, so stuff like gear lubrication may be done on a more frequent basis.

There are add'l checks for ETOPs longhaul missions as well, since an unscheduled engine removal or an IFSD requires these events to be reported and if an investigation finds faults, there may be penalties or worse, the carrier's ETOPs privilege may be revoked. So carriers will always do due diligence as an ounce of prevention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for why I assumed YVR would still be getting the B77W in2017 rather than the A343 replacement is that the PH-CA ASA has the 5th freedom seats hinging on the total seat capacity for CA service

The current YVR schedule of 10x a week to YVR with 3 onwards to YYZ and 4x a week onwards to US 5th freedom uses the B77W

If YYZ would get 3x weekly direct with the smaller A343 replacements, you'd probably want the remaining daily service to YVR on the larger B77W so you can offer a sizable seat count on the new YVR-US 5th freedom flight


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hear the PH-ITA ASA will be amended next week paving for MNL-FCO?
Wasn't it 5J that wanted MNL-DXB/SHJ-FCO?

[Arianespace]

The Philippines has 14 entitlements to fly Canada that promised to increase it to 21 when demand warrants it under Canada's Blue sky policy which should be approve sometime in 2017.

The current situation on the ground is that these entitlements are fully utilized restricting PR's growth, prompting them to enlist the bigger plane. It could be the holiday traffic or another but one thing is certain. It is growing that on some days it is already fully booked.

Eurest earlier mentioned about expanding flight to JFK. This would not happen unless you cut the frequency of YYZ, or PAL again leases the rights of ACA. There is no agreement with ACA yet.

The seven frequency was already fully utilized for YVR. The other seven was also fully booked for YYZ and JFK (3/4).

It is interesting to note that PAL hasn't reached its threshold to demand expansion. i.e PH-CA O&D traffic. But next year it will. That is the reason why I keep mentioning YYZ in the expansion because the sector is growing too. And the only way to grow it is to drop JFK tag, while PH negotiates with CA for the next 7. And that is where ORD comes in, and possibly MIA (4/3).

While SAN is lucrative, I remember PR wanting to fly it via HNL circa SMC, with the A330. I don't know now if that is still on the table.


As to the Italian bilateral, there is nothing in the table. We got similar entitlements like in Canada. And we haven't use a single right from it. Both PAL and CEB got 7 each.

If we are talking 5th freedom traffic from DXB, there is no more need for amendments as the transiting country already allows it.

[Eurest]

Fifth freedom traffic rights shall be available between intermediate points in the USA and the Points in Canada (except between points in California and Toronto) and between the Points in Canada and beyond points in the USA. Fifth freedom rights may only be exercised on up to two (2) route sectors at any one time. The frequency for the exercise of fifth freedom rights on each route sector shall be restricted to a maximum of four (4) flights per week in each direction. Fifth freedom traffic carried on each route sector shall be restricted to no more than fifty percent (50%) of the aircraft capacity used on that route sector, calculated on an annual basis.

I italicized the part of the CA-PH ASA I was pertaining to

http://www.rappler.com/nation/114281-aquino-agreement-manila-rome-flights

From what I've been told there is only currently a MoU on IT-PH ASA as per the air services consultation last 2013.
I believe this weeks signings make the 2013 MoU into a full-fledged ASA and replaces the 1969 one that did not grant access to Milan or any other points outside of Rome.
Again, that's only what I've been told and there were numerous bottles of inebriation agents involved.

[Arianespace]

That is correct. More like formality so to speak, as the framework has been previously agreed. Actually the signature of the SFA is enough to make it binding. Well, what do you know, this is just one of the reason to justify Italian trip to the Filipino people. Doing something while there.

[seven13]

@Arianespace, PR has already maximised its Canada entitlements despite flying only 10X to YVR? So does it mean MNL-YVR-YYZ is considered as 2 flights? MNLYRV + MNLYYZ = MNL/YVR/YYZ? The same with JFK? Maybe PR could slowly start ORD, dropping JFK as one stop and making it nonstop while keeping YYZ as a one stop flight for the meantime alongside the introduction of ORD. SAN has been in talk for quite sometime pre-SMC days then eventually dropped when SMC came in. What about restarting LAS? Was their success on LAS before was mainly due to the YVR-LAS-YVR sector and not the MNL-LAS passengers?

[Arianespace]

(except between points in California and Toronto)

You seemed confused there.

MNL-YVR = 7
MNL-YYZ = 3 via YVR. Take Eurest explanation
MNL-JFK  = 4 via YVR. (fifth freedom)
Total      = 14

Should PR fly direct JFK, the 3 or 4 would likely go to ORD, while giving YYZ its added fourth slot. should PR fly YYZ direct, still same results.

As to LAS, PR was actually surviving and generating revenue from both ends otherwise they would have cut services 6 months thereafter. Its cancellation has more to do with inadequate fleet, particularly during C & D maintenance on some A340s. Right now however, YYZ and JFK seems more lucrative than LAS.

[Eurest]

What better event to announce a PR A350 order than the climate change summit, lowering PR's carbon emissions vis-a-vis the A340

Are we sure none of the LTG/PR people are riding along PR1 as "economic" delegates?