Saw the CAPA report last night but was too sleepy to post. Didn't see this topic on the front page earlier this morning so I went directly to the Philippine thread on the third page. Copy/pasted below is my take on 5J's further fleet options.
The A359 may have the inside track on this given that 5J is an all-Airbus airline (ATR 50%). Additionally, the A359 has the right combination of capacity and range. Boeing's 789 has a fighting chance though IMO the 787-10 is a better fit if it could hurdle the TPAC crossing nonstop. Now, the A330neo is the dark horse here, given the intent of also using the fleet on shorter sectors...unless 5J plans to make HNL a tech stop on the way to the West Coast...and leverage the cheaper price of the A339 combined with the lower costs of shorter segments and their LCC fares to fight the nonstop competition. OR (farther out of left field) they're secretly thinking of SEA and the absence of a nonstop competitor from MNL...and wondering about GE's cancelled A338NEO order
Per Airbus, the range of the A330-800NEO is 7,500nm (8,631 statute miles).
With a range of 7,500 nautical miles, the A330-800 will typically seat 257 passengers in three classes of service, while offering capacity for up to 406 travellers in a high-density configuration.
Now, I doubt that 5J will miss the opportunity to do what every other low-cost carrier did when they launched long-haul services:provide an upgraded cabin to capture premium yields. I don't expect to see these aircraft in full-economy, and high density seating, for such long routes. With that constraint in mind, I'll build upon my conjecture.
GE's 4 A338 frames were planned for delivery in 2019.
Of a complementary note, their 4 A330-300s (which, are also very new - 1 delivered 12/2012, 1 in 2013, and 2 in 2015) are parked. A coup would be to not only 'rescue' the A338 order, but also, to acquire the current A333s (which would be superior in pricing/availability than anyone else can offer).
The two would compliment each other fabulously. At present, there has been conjecture that the A333(CEO) will actually possess a fuel burn advantage over the A339 (NEO) (and, by extension, I assume the A338 as well) on shorter segments (of less than 3 hours, IIRC) (someone please feel free to correct me, if I erred, on this count). In this vein, even if they do not take on any further A333s (as they have intended), the fleet commonality and abilities compliment each other well enough to offer a slight/potential product upgrade (such a business class, or a premium economy product) on the A338s where they can actually hope to capture the yields, and on the A333 which will be a CASM beast.
Of paramount concern, is pricing.
Airbus (and/or perhaps entirely GE) has great incentive to participate with an almost perfect solution to their needs.
At 7500nm - here are the projected ranges from CEB, and MNL;http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7500nm%40C ... 0MNL&DU=mihttp://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=CEB-PHX%0D ... =wls&DU=mi
CEB PHX 048° (NE) 049° (NE) 7,688 mi
CEB LAX 050° (NE) 051° (NE) 7,344 mi
CEB LAS 047° (NE) 048° (NE) 7,444 mi
CEB SFO 048° (NE) 049° (NE) 7,037 mi
CEB SEA 039° (NE) 040° (NE) 6,765 mi
CEB YVR 037° (NE) 039° (NE) 6,678 mi
What is impressive, is that even a non-West Coast cities (such as the secondary relievers of PHX, DEN) are in range, and the aircraft would still have the legs to take on another 1000 miles of range (and/or the capacity to take on a larger load, at the cost of some range - and still perform brilliantly).
Admittedly, the A350 would allow them the opportunity to serve the U.S. Eastern Coast. Is that worth it, though?