Airlines in the Philippines

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
Locked 2000 messages Options
1 ... 78798081828384 ... 100
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL A340 Retirement

seven13
I’m not 100% though if it has been reconfigured already or not. Everytime I check FR24,that particular frame has been doing 684, 662, 668 or 656, all ME sectors that it made me believe that it’s still in monoclass layout.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL A340 Retirement

peterpiloto
It was stated in the December 2017 issue of the Mabuhay Magazine that seven have been reconfigured and one more to go. One thing I noticed is the tri-class aircraft have a plugged window on each side separating Business Class from Premium Economy.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A321N

Travelbug_89
In reply to this post by Arianespace
First thing that came to mind: how weight restricted was that plane? Considering its a high density setup, I kept thinking how many seats were empty.

I told my cousin in MEL that he's flying on an A321Neo soon and he had mixed feelings. I'm still wondering tho, what if PR does convert a couple standard neos to LRs? Will that help them?

Are all Oz ops going to the A321Neo or is SYD staying A330?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A321N

B77Wflyer
In reply to this post by Arianespace
I have read that during the flight from KEF-LAX their where only 42 pax out of 218 seats which is the capacity of WOW Air A321neo usually the route is operated by an A330.


https://thepointsguy.com/2018/01/record-a321neo-wow-flight/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A321N

Arianespace
Administrator
Travelbug_89 wrote
First thing that came to mind: how weight restricted was that plane? Considering its a high density setup, I kept thinking how many seats were empty.

I told my cousin in MEL that he's flying on an A321Neo soon and he had mixed feelings. I'm still wondering tho, what if PR does convert a couple standard neos to LRs? Will that help them?

Are all Oz ops going to the A321Neo or is SYD staying A330?
B77Wflyer wrote
I have read that during the flight from KEF-LAX their where only 42 pax out of 218 seats which is the capacity of WOW Air A321neo usually the route is operated by an A330.
Its not about the seats, it has more to do with the payload. Thus, the reason why we have to weight our baggage.

Airbus assumes an average weight of 85kg. per passenger. At 200 pax for WOW that easily translates to 17,000kg. of payload from passenger load. With that payload the A321N can easily fly as far as 4000nm.

Payload of A321 is limited to 20,000kg. or thereabouts. And passengers always checked-in luggage. So Airbus made another assumption of 95kg. per passenger average. With passenger luggage in tow, it now has 19,000kg. payload. This time however its range is shorter to about 3800nm Equivalent Still Air Distance (ESAD).

Now, here is the tricky part. Payload is always a relative term, depending upon the airline's target market. That is the reason why Airbus marketing figures is always different from airlines, and from airline to airline. For example, CEB A321n have different payload calculation to PAL A321n even if they are the same plane.

What I'm saying is that the illustrative Airbus assumptions wont work on the OFW-centered/VFR market beyond 2000nm range.

And I'm not yet talking about the third auxilliary center tank which is needed to reach the 4000nm range. So there is reason why my calculations stopped at 19k instead of 20k, because the ACT and its fuel will eat A321n payload.

I've flown PAL A321 and they have a generous Y pitch. At 168 pax PR A321n should be roomier than its current 199 seater.

As to PAL operational requirement to SYD, we should see how they operate at HND. Sometimes they fly B77W occasionally and the usual A330 most of the time and on some lean days A321. There goes your answer.

And of course you don't fly A330 with 42 passengers. A321n should fit better because it can fly the same way the widebody does farther at 4600nm. And probably WOW thought its cheaper to fly them that way than booked them at a hotel.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A321N

Travelbug_89
Thanks for that in-depth explanation! That was quite helpful
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

Evodesire
It was just posted that the A350-1000 will be in Manila, and then it says "you know what that means..." right after the title. Can anyone hint us if PAL is putting in an order for the A350-1000? Yes they do have 6 options for the A350 (not sure if its limited to the -900 only) and I noticed that their A321NEO went down from 30 to 21.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL A340 Retirement

Evodesire
In reply to this post by Travelbug_89
Travelbug_89 wrote
Thats odd so that means there's only 7 reconfigured frames right now.

Edit: i just took a look on airfleets.net, 8782 is reconfigured. Its recently flew Jeddah too. Makes me think that they may be thinking of reconfiguring all A333s?
Getting that same impression too.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PAL A340 Retirement

Travelbug_89
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

PAL A340 Retirement

Arianespace
Administrator
3436 retirement

Sad to see them go. At least in the desert you await your fate by suspended sentence. In Florida your fate is immediately sealed.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A350-1000

Arianespace
Administrator
In reply to this post by Evodesire
Fleet planners said they are "considering" the plane.

I already told this forum in the past that they are following the footstep of CX.

According to them, the A35k is fully capable plane for the west coast unlike the 77w that suffer some range issues. It is also a perfect bridge between the 77w and the 359.

We should see.

Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

Solblanc
But there are already enough 77Ws for PAL’s longhaul needs, and most of them are practically brand-new. Even if some of the leases will expire soon, I can imagine that the lease rates for renewal will be quite competitive vs. acquiring new aircraft.

Well, we’ll see how it goes. Maybe the Airbus sales team has something up their sleeve.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

maortega15
In reply to this post by Arianespace
It'd be nice for them to order some 779s for LAX and SFO.

Curious to know, how are the loads for JFK? I know that they ordered some A359HGWs for JFK and YYZ, but maybe they can use bigger equipment down the road or much better to add a second frequency before upgauging?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A350-1000

Arianespace
Administrator
In reply to this post by Solblanc
Solblanc wrote
But there are already enough 77Ws for PAL’s longhaul needs, and most of them are practically brand-new. Even if some of the leases will expire soon, I can imagine that the lease rates for renewal will be quite competitive vs. acquiring new aircraft.

Well, we’ll see how it goes. Maybe the Airbus sales team has something up their sleeve.
For now yes, but when all the A340's are withdrawn you can see how inadequate their fleet are in about two-three years time. The A359 will become too small to service west coast. And delivery doesn't necessarily come immediately like the 77w. It will take Airbus about 3 years to do that assuming options are made this year. If they are waiting for the 777x the closest window PR can have is 2026 assuming the 777x start flying in 2019. Like what John Leahy said, its still a paper plane up to this time. In the airline business,  6 years of lost opportunity to address capacity shortfall is a very long time.

Also from what I understood from them, its not meant to replace the triple seven but complement it, particularly on the cargo side of things. The 777w can't carry the same payload as the A35K on its way back to MNL. Its a known fact.

So I surmise the A35k will do the belly transport for those oversize boxes that can't be carried by the triple seven due to range issues while they carry all the passengers it can get. All 370 of them.

Stranger still is the complimentary desire because the A35k is design to replace the 777w. Knowing however that CX does the same strategy to fleet planning makes me think it does make a lot of sense.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

Travelbug_89
That I'm surprised to find out. I always thought the 77W was brought in because it was capable of doing TPAC from MNL nonstop year round both ways with a full belly and cabin.

The fact that the A35K and 77W complement each other is a surprise too because they're so similar. Is the A35K's belly just that much bigger or is there something else at play that lets it haul more than the 77W?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

maortega15
The 77W is much heavier structurally and operates with higher fuel burn compared to the A350.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

Arianespace
Administrator
In reply to this post by Travelbug_89
Travelbug_89 wrote
That I'm surprised to find out. I always thought the 77W was brought in because it was capable of doing TPAC from MNL nonstop year round both ways with a full belly and cabin.

The fact that the A35K and 77W complement each other is a surprise too because they're so similar. Is the A35K's belly just that much bigger or is there something else at play that lets it haul more than the 77W?
From Boeing design perspective, a fully loaded 77w is barely capable of reaching YVR. PR flight to LAX is payload restricted to around 50t from almost 70t max.

Its return flight is even lower between 40-45t depending on headwinds. It can carry more than 50t but it will have to stop at GUM.

Airbus A35k on the other hand doesn't have issues carrying 55t payload going back to MNL and that makes PAL very interested.

Assuming, PAL orders a 350 seater plane and free 40kg. baggage that easily translate to 49t of payload providing 6t more of cargo under its belly.

And as Maortega15 pointed out, its more to do with the weight and the engine. The A350k is way more lighter than the 77w.
Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A350-1000

Travelbug_89
So all that weight savings does help quite a bit!

The fact that tbe 77W is pretty restricted for LAX is news to me, always thought they were super capable and that the gap between iy and the A35K isn't that wide.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A350-1000

Arianespace
Administrator
Make no mistake, 77w is LAX capable plane based on Boeing weight calculations, but not with how it is used by airlines. Meaning, it can carry all 370 passengers and their luggage to MNL at pre-determined weight and not according to the airlines weight.

Unfortunately, Boeing is not in the airline business. PAL does so it has to adopt to its passengers, while other airlines might have different strategy. For example, CX has less than 300 pax but more cargo, while PR got 370 with less cargo as illustrated in the above post. There is reason why there is a footnote on Boeing's brochure.

If you took one of these transpacific flight you would know why the moment you check-in. We Filipinos are famous for that. Beyond the free are cargo revenues.

Like what I said previously, it all depends on the airline and its target market.

Making Sense
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A350-1000

Arianespace
Administrator
In Manila tonight



We should see this bird in a few hours
Making Sense
1 ... 78798081828384 ... 100