AFAIK, PAL’s 15 A333s are at 238T MTOW. The five additional orders that were converted to A321Neos were planned to be at 242T MTOW. There were even plans on deploying them to YVR. So far only 5J operates two heavy weight A333s (RP-C3347 and 3348). The rest are 238T birds.
PAL originally ordered 235t variant A330's to replace the 8 old ones but received 238t variants after contract re-negotiations (878x). The 10 additional SMC orders was 240t but reduced instead to seven by LT group (876x) and converted the other three to seven 321Neos that fly Australia now. So in effect PAL has two variants. Meanwhile, CEB operates 235,238, and 240t variants. There is no 242t A330 variant in the Philippines. And there was no 5 A330 additional orders discussed here. The future A330neo order might be.
As to American Airlines interest in the Philippines, no regulatory filing at this time. Usually if an airline wishes to fly here they get permit one-two years prior to launch like TK and NZ did. While the former flew the latter never did. The closes one was Delta to San Francisco. It was filed but what was flown was Singapore instead.
If I recall when SMC had majority stake in PAL there order with Airbus conisist of 34 A321ceo, 10 A321neo, 10 A330-300 and 10 additional A330-300. PAL later revised there orders with the number of A330-300 on order being reduced from 20 to 15. If 3 where converted to 7 A21N I suspect the 2 where likely cancelled. I was under the impression that PAL converted 10 of the 34 A321ceo to A321neo and the 5 A330 where converted to options. But with the A330ceo production going to likely to end soon It becomes increasingly unlikely PAL will activated them. Know that its mention that 3 of the 5 A330 that where cancelled have been changed to A21N start to wonder what happened to 10 of the 34 A321ceo that where originally ordered or some where converted to A321neo and the remainder where cancelled?
You are correct on PAL order circa August 2012. If i'm not mistaken there were five re-negotiations about these 2012 orders. Three for SMC and two for LT Group.
My apologies, I was stating 7neo when they should have been 8neo in exchange for 5 A330s. They were canceled due to pressures from the LT Group in March 2014.
PAL got 34 A321ceos, and 10 A321neos or a total of 44 A321s, with 20 A321neo options. These are confirmed commitments in the original deal. They were never changed.
What changes were the options for 20 A321neos as PAL was constrained to order 8 more A321neos out of the option as replacement to the canceled A330 orders. Subsequent renegotiation in 2015 with Airbus resulted to them buying 3 more A321neos for a total of 21 A321neos with deferred delivery date until 2024 instead of 2020. What they have now is 7 A321neos.
But this was made after successfully selling the 10 A321ceos to lessors at a discount before heading to Vietjet which uses them on their fleet. They were originally intended for PAL Express until the direction shifted post SMC.
If you see them losing in the next two years, it is partly because of this deal. PAL leases these fleet at a discount to lessors to make money at a loss under sale-leaseback deals. It prevented them however from bleeding badly on having too many planes with no routes to fly.
Why too many A321s? Part of the fleet now flying for PAL and PALex was meant for Cambodian Air subsidiary which never fly after the LT Group takeover.
So is 5J really going for that A330N instead of 787-10?
I have not heard anyone from them yet. But this 252t variant was confirmed to be a game changer. It was not there last year. The devil boils down to detail and nobody spilled them at this time. Probably we'll know in 3 months time.
Some good reports from London. It seems that the front seat are always fully booked this year. The bad news is at the back. The A359 has been doing good for PAL since it was flown there. They are thinking of flying back the 777w with the same frequency because they have more seats in the front against doing a daily A359 round to the UK that would affect their load factor. In effect, adding more J class seats. Lets see how this pans out in two months time.
I'm curious as to what 5J plans for A339's, I doubt they are for Pacific US
I doubt the US3 would allow a long-haul low cost after seeing what Norwegian did to transatlantic.
I also don't see the US bureaucracy approving them, RE: Hawaii application limbo? Esp w/out Boeing's lobbyists to aid them
And with the Transpacific overcapacity with fares @ 400$, would customers choose an LCC over a full service?
The 251T A339 launched at Singapore last year is set at 287pax 3 class for 7200NM
STN? ORY? FCO? MAD?
Anyways there were 6 orders unaccounted for last June? Mystery unveiled 6.2019?
I'm not as attuned to the LCC crowd so do fill me in
Also I think someone asked about PR's VN & TH flights.
They are doing very well connecting pax from NA(US&CA) to TH & VN, and DPS, esp. J for TH
That is if they take the 339. There is No announcement from them or insinuation that they will take those. So the 787 is good as the 339, unless of course you have better information than mine. If you take a look at their ranges it can easily fly HNL at full payload so its difficult to discount that possibility. They are not in Hawaii because their plane doesn't have the leg to fly there at the configuration they like. Dense that is, 436 seats of them. They even ditches cargo in MEL and DXB on their heaviest variant even when Airbus says it can be done. The new Airbus however doesn't have that issue.
Speaking of Thailand, I learned they do have droves of transit passengers to North America. Seeing a 777 disembarkation from BKK, half of it goes the other way to transfer. PAL must have a better fare now as they are also a price sensitive bunch.
"We had a couple of planes damaged during bird strike incidents, and some with technical concerns. These factors are causing a domino effect in our operations."
In a separate advisory on Sunday, Cebu Pacific also said: "Efforts have been made to minimize the disruption to our passengers in the past week. However, we realize that current operating conditions, particularly in our Manila hub, necessitate a temporary reduction of flights."
This is what happens when you are biting more than what you can chew. While fast rotation made CEB very profitable, this scenario, aside from the congestion, was actually its downside, more fleet out of service, which legally is not "acts of God". This is the reason why they are paying for the re-scheduling. Of course, they are not telling how much did they pay for the fine. You can never find that in the news. At least, not yet. And I'm not yet talking about how this affect their revenue stream. A 50.6% decline in revenue is what you get when you force your plane to fly and hover in circles waiting to land. They were asked to move their ATR to Clark but they never did. So now they are reaping some of the consequences.
Yeah i witnessed the mayhem from the sidelines in MNL and CGY.
Due to the closure of CRK, my PR flight to CGY was packed and overbooked. we were an hour delayed due to this so not bad. My friends also flying to CGY that day via 5J was delayed from 830pm to 530am. Their flight was delayed then cancelled then finally pushed through. They were given food (Yoshinoya - buti naman!) but not much else in terms of updates.
My return flight to MNL the following day was still carnage. PR and Z2 flights were on average an hour delayed as usual, while the poor folks on 5J380 supposed to fly out at 1130am had their turnaround aircraft expected to arrive at CGY at 7pm!
Overworked planes with no spares...this is what you get.
To be fair, even PR is not safe here, at least on the long haul when 7772 got hit by lightning a few months back. that was also chaos.
Here is an interesting article worth reading. Now for the missing part. Would you believe that because of 3 grounded A320 this is what is happening? Their word not mine.
Global airline woes reach PH shores BY BEN KRITZ
THE wave of misery that has drowned at least eight significant airlines in bankruptcy so far this year is apparently now lapping at Philippine shores, with the country’s largest carrier Cebu Pacific announcing the cancellation of hundreds of flights due to unspecified “factors occurring all at the same time.”
The disruptions will affect Cebu Pacific’s schedule through at least May 10, but the company is already hinting things may not return to normal for some time, as it is “currently reviewing adjustments required for June and beyond.”
It may seem a stretch to conclude that Cebu Pacific, which until last Friday appeared to be a reasonably healthy airline, is headed for bankruptcy or some other form of dissolution, and I would expect the company to vigorously disagree with that hypothesis. Recent events, however, are difficult to dismiss as simple bad luck or coincidence, as they fit a pattern that has already been seen in numerous other recent airline failures.
The pattern begins with a sharp negative change in an airline’s financial performance. In March, Cebu Pacific reported its net income for 2018 dropped by more than 50 percent from the previous year, from P7.9 billion to P3.9 billion. This was in spite of revenue increasing by about 9.0 percent year-on-year, driven by a substantial increase in cargo traffic and an increase of about 2.7 percent, or about 500,000 in passenger numbers.
Cebu Pacific attributed the downturn to a “challenging environment,” citing higher fuel prices, a weaker peso, and the six-month closure of Boracay as factors eroding its income in 2018. Yet, rival (and perennial loss-maker) Philippine Airlines, faced with precisely the same challenges, had what would be considered a very successful year by its standards. PAL cut its net loss by more than 40 percent, to P4.33 billion from P7.33 billion in 2017, and increased its revenues by 16.2 percent. It also more than doubled Cebu Pacific’s gain in passenger numbers, carrying 15.9 million passengers in 2018 compared to 14.5 million in 2017.
Thu, Cebu Pacific’s woes are attributable to something internal, which also fits the pattern. What that might be is subject to some speculation in the absence of a forthright explanation from the company, but a good guess will be its strategy of upgauging, or increasing capacity by switching out smaller planes for larger ones on high-demand routes. When done properly, that is, when the new, larger and costlier aircraft can be filled and kept filled, the strategy is effective and profitable. If the company misses the mark, however, and finds that the larger capacity is not being fully utilized, then it has just turned a potentially profitable route into a potential loser.
The second part of the pattern is just what Cebu Pacific is experiencing now, actual operational difficulties attributed to vague causes. Cebu Pacific’s official word on the unusual number of flight cancellations is that they are the consequence of maintenance issues – the company disclosed that one aircraft recently suffered a bird strike – and to some extent, traffic congestion at Manila. The latter cause can probably be ignored, because again, other airlines such as PAL have not been similarly affected. A cause like “maintenance issues,” however, cannot. It fundamentally means that Cebu Pacific is struggling to keep its planes in the air. Whether that is a matter of inefficiency, bad planning or simple bad luck, only the airline can say; whatever the reason, the key point is that the solution is a financial issue – keeping planes in the air instead of on the ground requires spending. Whatever the underlying causes, Cebu Pacific is evidently not spending, or not spending enough, and that is an alarming sign to the airline’s stakeholders.
If what is happening now to Cebu Pacific is the beginning of a collapse, the next signpost along that path will be a drop in passenger numbers. Iceland’s WOW Air, an airline very similar to Cebu Pacific that abruptly folded in February, had its highest passenger numbers (about 15 million) in 2017, but then began to lose passengers last year as it struggled to keep its fleet active. Falling passenger numbers aggravated already tight financial conditions, and put the airline into a spin it could not recover from.
Hopefully, that is not the case with Cebu Pacific, although the auguries at this point are a bit troubling. Even though the airline gives the traveler the impression that it is little more than a fleet of buses with wings, Filipino consumers have a paucity of choices as it is, and it would be most unfortunate to lose one.
Here is photos of PAL first A321neo in Cabin Flex configuration. Looks similar to TK A21N with doors 3 deactivated. Notice that a few rows of window have been covered which i heard is a placement for a center lavatory after J cabin and before the Y section, also the aircraft is wearing a mask in its front windshield. Notice that lacking a radome like the one found on there first batch of A321neo.