User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 9546
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:08 am

Cebu Pacific Air has begun evaluating new-generation widebody aircraft with the objective of launching flights to the west coast of the US. The Philippine LCC is studying the A350, 787 and A330neo and plans to issue a formal tender to Airbus and Boeing in 3Q2017.


Planned routes include MNL-LAX and MNL-SFO

Cebu Pacific is unlikely to order any more A330ceo and focus on new types instead

Cebu Pacific is unlikely to grow its A330-300 fleet further, but has the flexibility to add capacity to the Australia and the Middle East by reducing the number of short haul flights operated with the A330 fleet. As CAPA has previously highlighted, the additional two A330 being delivered over the next few months are being initially used to upgauge domestic and regional international flights, increasing the number of A330s used on short haul missions to four aircraft.


http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/c ... ast-316422

I would think that they would likely go for the A350
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:15 am

I agree that the A350 is most likely, especially if the A330neo isn't able to fly the routes and unless Boeing offers bumper pricing on the 787. My guess would be as the A350 is able to offer 10-abreast this would be a positive for the model as well where the 787 is only able to go to 9-abreast.
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1192
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:53 pm

Yeesh...10 abreast on an A350. Do they do 9 abreast on A330? I wouldn't see 10 on A350 unless they did because that would be TIGHT.
-Andrés Juánez
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:14 pm

I think the A350 probably is the most likely candidate for Cebu to fly to California with. That flight is 7300 miles and westbound can be 15 hours with the winds. The A330neo has more range than their current fleet and 7300 miles is within the marketing range, but Cebu has a dense seating configuration with over 400 seats on the A333s. An A338 might run into weight restrictions westbound with a high seating density and when winds are strong. I don't think an A339 would have a chance at a route that long. The A359 would be a much better option. The 787-9 would work too, but Cebu already has an Airbus fleet, so that would be a tough sell.

For the traveling public I wonder if Cebu will put in premium economy or business class. 30 inch pitch with 9 abreast A330s is not going to be very comfortable as they start flying longer flights.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6681
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:29 pm

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 :?: :shock:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re:

Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:01 pm

ahj2000 wrote:
Yeesh...10 abreast on an A350. Do they do 9 abreast on A330? I wouldn't see 10 on A350 unless they did because that would be TIGHT.



They do have 9-abreast on their A330s so you would be looking at similar seats on the A350 at 10-abreast.
 
trex8
Posts: 5365
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:19 pm

Hasn't Air Asia already said they will have 10 Y on their 359?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:22 pm

For an airline that's willing to use narrow enough seats to fit 9Y in an A330, a 10Y A350 is pretty much an unbeatable proposition. The 789 would have to be offered very cheap to compete, and we know Boeing isn't in the business of selling 787s cheap at the moment.

I think the business plan is crazy, but the A350 is clearly the right airplane for the business plan.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re:

Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:30 am

ahj2000 wrote:
Yeesh...10 abreast on an A350. Do they do 9 abreast on A330? I wouldn't see 10 on A350 unless they did because that would be TIGHT.


A350 is called a "XWB". If they can put 9 abreast on A330, I don't see why they can't & won't put 10 abreast on A350.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26594
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:38 am

enzo011 wrote:
I agree that the A350 is most likely, especially if the A330neo isn't able to fly the routes and unless Boeing offers bumper pricing on the 787. My guess would be as the A350 is able to offer 10-abreast this would be a positive for the model as well where the 787 is only able to go to 9-abreast.


The A330 and A350 have the same Exit Limit of 440 seats due to them both having four Type A exit pairs. As their A330s already seat 436, they would effectively be installing the same cabin on the A350, just with wider seats (by about 1.5 inches) and more pitch.

So if the A330-900 can handle the mission, it would be the preferred option, IMO.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:08 am

Stitch wrote:
The A330 and A350 have the same Exit Limit of 440 seats due to them both having four Type A exit pairs. As their A330s already seat 436, they would effectively be installing the same cabin on the A350, just with wider seats (by about 1.5 inches) and more pitch.

So if the A330-900 can handle the mission, it would be the preferred option, IMO.


Very good point on exit limits affecting their ability to profit from going 10Y. If they are really trying to fly to the USA I don't think the A330-900 will have the range. But since they are so close to the exit limit -- which is the same for A350 and 787 -- maybe the 787-9 would be a more attractive option than I was thinking.
 
PanzerPowner
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:23 am

As Cebu Pacific has taken delivery of another A330CEO in the new Livery, i'd love to see the A350 XWB with that sexy tropical livery, but i see 5J choosing these routes. CEB-LAX,SFO MNL/New Manila International Airport (if ever built) - LAX,SFO,YVR, and any other Filipino Heavy areas. And maybe LHR or LGW. As competing with PAL is a good idea.
Well uh, I obviously decided to refine this but i dont know how.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:55 am

Stitch wrote:
The A330 and A350 have the same Exit Limit of 440 seats due to them both having four Type A exit pairs. As their A330s already seat 436, they would effectively be installing the same cabin on the A350, just with wider seats (by about 1.5 inches) and more pitch.

So if the A330-900 can handle the mission, it would be the preferred option, IMO.



I agree that the A330neo is the best option for Cebu Pacific, especially if the seating would be the same for a larger aircraft. The purchase price would be less than the A350 and 787 as well so they would save money there as well. If the A330neo cannot fly the required missions and the choice is the A350 you wonder if they would have a section of Premium economy or "light" business class if they are limited to 440 seats in the A350. They could just make it a comfortable trip though for passengers and keep it at all Y as you say, comfortable seats and decent pitch throughout the aircraft, sounds like a very nice solution for passengers on long flights.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:59 am

Stitch wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
I agree that the A350 is most likely, especially if the A330neo isn't able to fly the routes and unless Boeing offers bumper pricing on the 787. My guess would be as the A350 is able to offer 10-abreast this would be a positive for the model as well where the 787 is only able to go to 9-abreast.


The A330 and A350 have the same Exit Limit of 440 seats due to them both having four Type A exit pairs. As their A330s already seat 436, they would effectively be installing the same cabin on the A350, just with wider seats (by about 1.5 inches) and more pitch.


The A350 cannot seat 440 passengers in a two-class, 9-abreast economy cabin. For that you need a 10-abreast economy cabin, which gives the same comfort as a 9-abreast A330.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:47 am

Devilfish wrote:
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 :?: :shock:


Per Airbus, the range of the A330-800NEO is 7,500nm (8,631 statute miles).

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/spotlight-on-a330neo/
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=mi

http://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?
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I think the A350 probably is the most likely candidate for Cebu to fly to California with. That flight is 7300 miles and westbound can be 15 hours with the winds. The A330neo has more range than their current fleet and 7300 miles is within the marketing range, but Cebu has a dense seating configuration with over 400 seats on the A333s. An A338 might run into weight restrictions westbound with a high seating density and when winds are strong. I don't think an A339 would have a chance at a route that long. The A359 would be a much better option. The 787-9 would work too, but Cebu already has an Airbus fleet, so that would be a tough sell.

For the traveling public I wonder if Cebu will put in premium economy or business class. 30 inch pitch with 9 abreast A330s is not going to be very comfortable as they start flying longer flights.


Also considering MNL can have some lengthy delays, especially during typhoon season, the A338 could run into difficulties with a confluence of strong winds westbound and the high density cabin.
A few months ago we spent over an hour and a half SIN-MNL waiting for landing in heavy weather.
There probably would be a few diversions or weight restrictions westbound with an A338 with their A333 seating density I guess. Whether or not this precludes the A338, is acceptable, or is an opportunity to introduce an upgraded longhaul cabin to try and avoid any weight restrictions?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:20 pm

You can't use marketing range numbers and expect real world operating conditions to result in the same useable range. The longest A332 routes are about 5700nm against a marketing range of 7250nm. A higher payload option might have more range than DL flying SEA-HKG or DTW-NGO where Delta occasionally had weight restrictions or QF flying AKL-LAX. MNL-LAX is 6350nm. With range increases it should be possible if it weren't for the westbound winds pushing flight time to 15 hours.

The A338 in a high density configuration is going to be right in the edge of its range. I think the A359 and 789 can comfortably fly that route without payload restrictions and make more sense.
 
carlokiii
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:22 pm

Totally without any sound justification as to why but it would be nice to see a Boeing 787-9 in CEB's livery.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9198
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:33 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I think the A350 probably is the most likely candidate for Cebu to fly to California with. That flight is 7300 miles and westbound can be 15 hours with the winds. The A330neo has more range than their current fleet and 7300 miles is within the marketing range, but Cebu has a dense seating configuration with over 400 seats on the A333s. An A338 might run into weight restrictions westbound with a high seating density and when winds are strong. I don't think an A339 would have a chance at a route that long. The A359 would be a much better option. The 787-9 would work too, but Cebu already has an Airbus fleet, so that would be a tough sell.

For the traveling public I wonder if Cebu will put in premium economy or business class. 30 inch pitch with 9 abreast A330s is not going to be very comfortable as they start flying longer flights.


The A330-800 and the 787-8/9 have about the same range, around 7,500 nm. Only the A350 has substantially more with around 8,000 nm.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:44 pm

A better metric is to use the payload range charts.

Airbus ACAP documents have a chart for the 233t model:

Image

In order to fly 7,500 nm the A330-200 would sacrifice a lot of payload.

The newest 242t model would obviously do better, but still nowhere close an economical payload.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:21 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
A better metric is to use the payload range charts.

Airbus ACAP documents have a chart for the 233t model:

Image

In order to fly 7,500 nm the A330-200 would sacrifice a lot of payload.

The newest 242t model would obviously do better, but still nowhere close an economical payload.


The A330-200 has a unique payload range chart. Unlike pretty much every other large jet, the A332 cannot takeoff with full fuel tanks since MTOW is not high enough regardless of payload. This results in one kink instead of two in the payload range chart. Usually the second kink is where the airplane takes off with full tanks at max takeoff weight and whatever payload the plane has left. This is often the marketing range with the arbitrary operating payload usually close. The A330-200 marketing range only has a payload of 40,000lbs, which is only 175 passengers and does not include transpacific winds. Obviously that is very unrealistic for an airline like Cebu who uses dense seating.

The A338 will have somewhere around 15% or possibly more range than the A332 chart you provided. That still will be right in the edge of the A338 range to fly LAX-MNL. Assuming that Cebu configured the A338 like Air Transat configures its two class 9 abreast A332, we could see 345 seats. That would require a payload of about 80,000 lbs. looking at the the A332 chart, 80,000lbs payload is 1500nm under marketing range. So carrying over some assumptions regarding a 40k payload for the 7500nm marketing range on the A338 that would leave the A338 about 6000nm of range in a Cebu configuration and we have not even included winter winds and additional distance for an indirect route (about 300mi). LAX-MNL is 6350nm.

Cebu would be payload restricted with the A338. There are better airplane options for them.
 
744pnf
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:57 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:40 pm

enzo011 wrote:
I agree that the A350 is most likely, especially if the A330neo isn't able to fly the routes and unless Boeing offers bumper pricing on the 787. My guess would be as the A350 is able to offer 10-abreast this would be a positive for the model as well where the 787 is only able to go to 9-abreast.


The A350XWB is only 4-5" wider than a 787...10 abreast is TOO MANY.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9890
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:43 pm

744pnf wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
I agree that the A350 is most likely, especially if the A330neo isn't able to fly the routes and unless Boeing offers bumper pricing on the 787. My guess would be as the A350 is able to offer 10-abreast this would be a positive for the model as well where the 787 is only able to go to 9-abreast.


The A350XWB is only 4-5" wider than a 787...10 abreast is TOO MANY.

Well, make sure not to fly on a Air Caraibes', Frenchblue's, Air Asia X's, possibly Cebu Pacific's A350s then.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6681
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:28 pm

Rajahdhani wrote:
Per Airbus, the range of the A330-800NEO is 7,500nm (8,631 statute miles).

Still air range with normal payload. More useful would be ESAD westbound.

Rajahdhani wrote:
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.

The most that could be expected is Premium Economy and Economy...otherwise you lose plenty of pax needed to pay for the flight. And being an LCC, 5J couldn't raise fares much to make up for the premium demand. OTOH, maintaining a single-class layout, while good for CASM, hurts the aircraft's effective range.

Rajahdhani wrote:
GE's 4 A338 frames were planned for delivery in 2019.

No problem...CAPA highlights that 5J plans to issue a tender in 3Q2017.

Rajahdhani wrote:
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).

With their brand-new A333s, I don't think 5J would deviate from their stated plan of having no more A330CEOs...let alone older examples.

Rajahdhani wrote:
Of paramount concern, is pricing.

And this is where the A338NEO (provided Airbus builds it) has a distinct advantage over the A359. Lower price and better range than the 788...242T MTOW and similar pax capacity with the 789. Although currently rising fuel prices could once again tip the scales to the most fuel efficient model.

Rajahdhani wrote:
At 7500nm - here are the projected ranges from CEB, and MNL;
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=7500nm%40C ... 0MNL&DU=mi

The most useful figures are those for LAX, SFO, SEA and YVR.....

Image

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MNL-YVR%2F ... =wls&DU=nm


Rajahdhani wrote:
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).

Not impressive at all as you'd be hard-pressed to find demand for MNL at those locations, not to mention mustering enough for a viable load factor.

Rajahdhani wrote:
Admittedly, the A350 would allow them the opportunity to serve the U.S. Eastern Coast. Is that worth it, though?

Nonstop :?: 5J would require the 280T variant for that...and only if they were contemplating a financial hara kiri :!: :faint:
Last edited by Devilfish on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26594
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:31 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
The A350 cannot seat 440 passengers in a two-class, 9-abreast economy cabin. For that you need a 10-abreast economy cabin, which gives the same comfort as a 9-abreast A330.


Are they going to a two-class configuration? The CAPA report made no mention of such a configuration and their current A330-300 fleet is single-class at 436 seats and those perform "long haul" missions to DOH, DXB and RUH.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:53 pm

744pnf wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
I agree that the A350 is most likely, especially if the A330neo isn't able to fly the routes and unless Boeing offers bumper pricing on the 787. My guess would be as the A350 is able to offer 10-abreast this would be a positive for the model as well where the 787 is only able to go to 9-abreast.


The A350XWB is only 4-5" wider than a 787...10 abreast is TOO MANY.



The A350 is 43 cm (16.9" or one QR 787 Y seat :duck: ) wider than the A330 and Cebu already fit 9-abreast into their A330s. Seems like you could even have more comfort in an 5J A350 than a A330 at 10 and 9-abreast respectively. :crowded:
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6681
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:51 pm

A follow-up to CAPA's coverage indicates that MEL has overtaken HNL once more in 5J's priority destinations.....

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/c ... ves-316669

Quote:
"The LCC initially added Melbourne to its network plan in 2015 after the Philippines and Australia forged an extended air services agreement. But Cebu Pacific subsequently decided to shelve plans to launch Melbourne, and has instead been using additional A330 capacity to expand in its domestic and regional international market.

Melbourne is now back on the agenda and is the next priority – leapfrogging Honolulu – for Cebu Pacific’s long haul operation. A new partnership with Melbourne-based Tigerair Australia is a key driver in making Manila-Melbourne a viable route, along with the anticipated rapid growth in Australian visitor numbers to the Philippines."



Considering 5J's 64% load factor @ SYD, the A338NEO may be the right size at the right price for an emerging MEL market (and AKL too), while still being able to do nearer NA routes. In the meantime, 5J still have A321NEOs coming to grow OZ and NZ destinations.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:02 am

Devilfish wrote:
A follow-up to CAPA's coverage indicates that MEL has overtaken HNL once more in 5J's priority destinations.....

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/c ... ves-316669

Quote:
"The LCC initially added Melbourne to its network plan in 2015 after the Philippines and Australia forged an extended air services agreement. But Cebu Pacific subsequently decided to shelve plans to launch Melbourne, and has instead been using additional A330 capacity to expand in its domestic and regional international market.

Melbourne is now back on the agenda and is the next priority – leapfrogging Honolulu – for Cebu Pacific’s long haul operation. A new partnership with Melbourne-based Tigerair Australia is a key driver in making Manila-Melbourne a viable route, along with the anticipated rapid growth in Australian visitor numbers to the Philippines."



Considering 5J's 64% load factor @ SYD, the A338NEO may be the right size at the right price for an emerging MEL market (and AKL too), while still being able to do nearer NA routes. In the meantime, 5J still have A321NEOs coming to grow OZ and NZ destinations.


I'm actually surprised they haven't done better than 64% inbound (outbound tends to be lower). It does mention overcapacity is a concern, so I'd be interested to see what they would achieve MNL-MEL.
From the BITRE figures they seem to hover around 60% most of the year, it's not mutually exclusive but maybe they should concentrate on their US ambitions. :P
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:15 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Still air range with normal payload. More useful would be ESAD westbound.


I knew that I failed to account for winds, and the realities of operation. How do you determine ESAD (as a layman)? Thank you, though, for correcting me.

Devilfish wrote:
The most that could be expected is Premium Economy and Economy...otherwise you lose plenty of pax needed to pay for the flight. And being an LCC, 5J couldn't raise fares much to make up for the premium demand. OTOH, maintaining a single-class layout, while good for CASM, hurts the aircraft's effective range.


That was my thought exactly. I could not see them maximizing the aircraft into an all-economy layout as it would affect range. My thought was that they would take the oppurtunity to produce a business/'premium economy'/economy - a la Scoot;
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Scoot ... 87-900.php

Sure, I can see your point quite clearly - it would be 2 new cabins, new services, new pricing, and into new destinations (long-haul, no less) - each a complicating risk, to a task that requires risk-aversion to succeed. Scoot, has the benefit of SQ, and being much larger.

Devilfish wrote:
No problem...CAPA highlights that 5J plans to issue a tender in 3Q2017.

So - do you think that 5J will take on the GE order? I am hopeful, but perhaps too optimistic...

Devilfish wrote:
With their brand-new A333s, I don't think 5J would deviate from their stated plan of having no more A330CEOs...let alone older examples.

Indeed, they were quite blatant about that. Wishful thinking on my part, and GE (or lessors) would have been happy to see all the aircraft go, and soon.

Devilfish wrote:
And this is where the A338NEO (provided Airbus builds it) has a distinct advantage over the A359. Lower price and better range than the 788...242T MTOW and similar pax capacity with the 789. Although currently rising fuel prices could once again tip the scales to the most fuel efficient model.

BRAVO! Sadly, this is succinct. I am such a A330NEO fan, but fuel economy is king.


Devilfish wrote:
The most useful figures are those for LAX, SFO, SEA and YVR.....

Not impressive at all as you'd be hard-pressed to find demand for MNL at those locations, not to mention mustering enough for a viable load factor.

Nonstop :?: 5J would require the 280T variant for that...and only if they were contemplating a financial hara kiri :!: :faint:


What is the composition of the Filipino-U.S. market? Are there any other cities that 5J should consider? Apart from Hawaii- more Californian destinations? Can CEB be used for long-haul, or would the yields be even worse?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:20 pm

@Newbiepilot

Design range usually sits around 2/3 of max payload. ~60klb for an a330-200 ?
you can't use a 233t payload / range chart from way back for a 242t A330 from 2016
for any meaningful postulations.
For a first approximation you can from the MZFW limit to MTOW limit corner go _up_ by the amount of MTOW added.
Then draw a line from that point parallel to the derate slope. Extend the MZFW limit to the right.
voila your new payload range chart for an extended MTOW airplane.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:52 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The A330-200 has a unique payload range chart. Unlike pretty much every other large jet, the A332 cannot takeoff with full fuel tanks since MTOW is not high enough regardless of payload. This results in one kink instead of two in the payload range chart. Usually the second kink is where the airplane takes off with full tanks at max takeoff weight and whatever payload the plane has left. This is often the marketing range with the arbitrary operating payload usually close. The A330-200 marketing range only has a payload of 40,000lbs, which is only 175 passengers and does not include transpacific winds. Obviously that is very unrealistic for an airline like Cebu who uses dense seating.

The A338 will have somewhere around 15% or possibly more range than the A332 chart you provided. That still will be right in the edge of the A338 range to fly LAX-MNL. Assuming that Cebu configured the A338 like Air Transat configures its two class 9 abreast A332, we could see 345 seats. That would require a payload of about 80,000 lbs. looking at the the A332 chart, 80,000lbs payload is 1500nm under marketing range. So carrying over some assumptions regarding a 40k payload for the 7500nm marketing range on the A338 that would leave the A338 about 6000nm of range in a Cebu configuration and we have not even included winter winds and additional distance for an indirect route (about 300mi). LAX-MNL is 6350nm.

Cebu would be payload restricted with the A338. There are better airplane options for them.


Wow! Umm. Bravo!

A350s it is, then {if U.S. West Coast (as stated) is the goal...}?
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:58 pm

WIederling wrote:
@Newbiepilot

Design range usually sits around 2/3 of max payload. ~60klb for an a330-200 ?
you can't use a 233t payload / range chart from way back for a 242t A330 from 2016
for any meaningful postulations.
For a first approximation you can from the MZFW limit to MTOW limit corner go _up_ by the amount of MTOW added.
Then draw a line from that point parallel to the derate slope. Extend the MZFW limit to the right.
voila your new payload range chart for an extended MTOW airplane.


I know that I am being ignorant/lazy here, but when you do - what meaningful load did you get. How far off was he? Or, to what degree does that invalidate his arguement? In your approximation - what's the most likely/accurate projection of real-world, operating performance of say the A338? I am just fascinated by how this works!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:19 pm

Rajahdhani wrote:
Or, to what degree does that invalidate his arguement? In your approximation - what's the most likely/accurate projection of real-world, operating performance of say the A338? I am just fascinated by how this works!


To get a first order approximation
Take what Airbus says:
"The new 242-tonne A330-200 can fly 7,250 nautical miles (13,450 km.) with 247 passengers."
then:
How much does a pax plus bags weigh in at? 105...115kg each seems to be reasonable assumption.
for 247 pax that turns out to 26t .. 28t plus crackers and other sundries : 28..30t payload ( max 50t. i.e. ~3/5th full).

you don't have the 242t payload range thingie?
So take the 3-2-1 page from the A330 ACAPS doc :
"Payload/Range for Trent700 and 233t MTOW".
Move the derate part of the curve 9t ( 242t - 233t ) up along the y axis.
As you can not go beyond MZFW extend the horizontal 49.5t line to the right.
The new "corner" will continue to sit at just below 50t payload but range extended to ~5150nm.
Now go down and look where a vertical @7250nm range line crosses the new range curve.
I get about 62klb or 28t ( my initial of the cuff guess was 60klb.)

So that jibes with Airbus brochure data.
Murphy is an optimist
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:16 pm

WIederling wrote:
Rajahdhani wrote:
Or, to what degree does that invalidate his arguement? In your approximation - what's the most likely/accurate projection of real-world, operating performance of say the A338? I am just fascinated by how this works!


To get a first order approximation
Take what Airbus says:
"The new 242-tonne A330-200 can fly 7,250 nautical miles (13,450 km.) with 247 passengers."
then:
How much does a pax plus bags weigh in at? 105...115kg each seems to be reasonable assumption.
for 247 pax that turns out to 26t .. 28t plus crackers and other sundries : 28..30t payload ( max 50t. i.e. ~3/5th full).

you don't have the 242t payload range thingie?
So take the 3-2-1 page from the A330 ACAPS doc :
"Payload/Range for Trent700 and 233t MTOW".
Move the derate part of the curve 9t ( 242t - 233t ) up along the y axis.
As you can not go beyond MZFW extend the horizontal 49.5t line to the right.
The new "corner" will continue to sit at just below 50t payload but range extended to ~5150nm.
Now go down and look where a vertical @7250nm range line crosses the new range curve.
I get about 62klb or 28t ( my initial of the cuff guess was 60klb.)

So that jibes with Airbus brochure data.

Two points:
According to EU-OPS 1.620, assumed average passenger weight is 84kg (this is what Airbus uses, afaik, as it maximizes "brochure range", actual weights are higher and so decrease max range)
Have a look at WV081 in the A330 ACAP. MZFW is 4 tonnes lower for the 242t variant.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:48 pm

sf260 wrote:
According to EU-OPS 1.620, assumed average passenger weight is 84kg

where is your "bags" item brought in ?
Have a look at WV081 in the A330 ACAP. MZFW is 4 tonnes lower for the 242t variant.


and you can have WV082 with dynamic payload MZFW 171t ... 175t.
( effective rounding out the turning corner MZFW/MTOW.)
and thus does not change my result.
Murphy is an optimist
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:25 pm

The dynamic payload means that if you fill up to MZFW, you are limited to 238t, but you still pay landing/atc fees for the 242t variant.

Anyway, I thought i just share this slide from an Airbus sales campain 2 years ago. The chart is made by Airbus and based an actual figures (for one particular customer).

A330 payload range evolution:
Image

It is still slightly optimistic as it uses the same OWE for all variants. It also doesn't differentiate for payload difference between the 238 and 242t variant. It is still a sales chart after all.

The neo has around 100nm more range than the ceo (due to higher OWE and 10 extra seats, max 200nm in the same seat config). This also means that actual range is around 800nm less than "brochure" range.

You also immediately can deduct why Air Asia needs an aircraft other than the A330-900 to fly KUL-LHR.

edit: the purple line has the 139k liter fuel tank option, the others don't.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:27 pm

A not so good day LAX-MNL is 15hrs. Typically it is in the 14hr 15 to 14hr 30 range. A 789 with 335 seats is good for a bit over 15 hrs. From airline sources I am told a realistic weight per passenger incl. baggage is 110kg which is what I have used in this instance.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:51 pm

sf260 wrote:
A330 -300 payload range evolution:
Image


Discussion and data further up was for the A330 -200

The -200 always had the center tank available while the -300 got this option only recently.

The initial small slope from 48 down to 44t represents the payload to mtow swapout.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6681
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:00 pm

LionelHutz wrote:
It does mention overcapacity is a concern, so I'd be interested to see what they would achieve MNL-MEL. From the BITRE figures they seem to hover around 60% most of the year, it's not mutually exclusive but maybe they should concentrate on their US ambitions. :P

As congestion is likewise a concern @ MNL. However, 5J seems determined to make a go of it in OZ.


Rajahdhani wrote:
How do you determine ESAD (as a layman)? Thank you, though, for correcting me.

You're welcome...though I'm not in the habit of correcting others, merely highlighting things...as I often need correction myself. Here's a link for the basics.....

http://www.slideshare.net/MarcBrodbeck/ ... d-53845018

Rajahdhani wrote:
it would be 2 new cabins, new services, new pricing, and into new destinations (long-haul, no less) - each a complicating risk, to a task that requires risk-aversion to succeed.

A caveat here. There was a post elsewhere saying that more 'economy' seats could actually be lighter than a mix of 'premium' and 'economy' with less seats. But I guess that's for a better pedigreed carrier like Scoot. I won't be surprised if 5J would continue "nickel and diming" their customers till they make their buck.

Rajahdhani wrote:
So - do you think that 5J will take on the GE order? I am hopeful, but perhaps too optimistic...

Doubtful...unless Airbus gets more definite with the thing and offers 5J the same launch pricing and incentives.

Rajahdhani wrote:
What is the composition of the Filipino-U.S. market? Are there any other cities that 5J should consider? Apart from Hawaii- more Californian destinations? Can CEB be used for long-haul, or would the yields be even worse?

The concentration is in the SFO and LAX areas, with strong demand in NY, NJ and MD on the eastern seaboard. The only other plausible CA destination is SAN as a tag to YVR. ORD is always in the running (PR flew there briefly before). PR has not released their figures for CEB-LAX (at least none I have seen). Being their stronghold, CEB might work for 5J internationally with the right product.

Rajahdhani wrote:
I am such a A330NEO fan, but fuel economy is king.

Maybe the 78J would have the TPAC legs with the TK-10 by EIS to give the A359 a run for its money? .....

Image
https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/get ... emid=69101


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-432249/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:00 pm

@Wiederling: you don't have to explain a payload diagram to me. I am a pilot & engineer myself. I am trying to explain something to you.

I know the discussion was initially about the A330-200, that's why I wrote specifically A330-300 above the graph (& I don't have any graphs for the -200). Compare the graph with the brochure numbers that Airbus spouts in the media. You get an idea about the differences.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:34 pm

sf260 wrote:
@Wiederling: you don't have to explain a payload diagram to me. I am a pilot & engineer myself. I am trying to explain something to you.

I know the discussion was initially about the A330-200, that's why I wrote specifically A330-300 above the graph (& I don't have any graphs for the -200). Compare the graph with the brochure numbers that Airbus spouts in the media. You get an idea about the differences.


Your try at explaining hangs a bit for me. Lets assume I am too dumb.

Airbus token model for the [email protected] takes 277 passengers in some averaged arrangement over a distance of 6,350 nm.
going by your word per pax only ~102kg ( 85 for the meat 17 for the bags) 28t payload.

Now being an engineer and involved you could probably explain what was included in 128kg per PAX in your graph.
( That was obviously presented to a professional group and using bespoke criteria.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:08 pm

128kg is pax+bags from real world figures, averaged from actual weights (by one particular airline). The same airline even assumes 136kg/pax for future fleet decisions.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:19 pm

The A330neo might get another MTOW boost, up to 245t.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:30 pm

sf260 wrote:
128kg is pax+bags from real world figures, averaged from actual weights (by one particular airline). The same airline even assumes 136kg/pax for future fleet decisions.


Rather more meat aka "obese pax" or more bags aka "pax traveling with full household" ? :-)

IMU the typical Airbus arrangement used to be an accepted metric. The Boeing one before they changed their setup recently less so.

for public up front presentation you obviously need a "typical model" preferably similar across airframers to allow some comparison.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:31 pm

As for realistic ranges, the SAS 242t A330-300 with 264 pax goes as far as 5,600 nm. That's in line with the payload/range chart posted above.

FYI the brochure range is 6,350 nm with 277 pax.

One can imagine a similar picture for the A330-200.

Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
sf260
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:06 pm

That is actually an interesting graph to see what (calculated) winds do to ESAD, great circle distances are 4670nm-4680nm CUN-CPH and CPH-HKG, 5380nm for CPH-SIN and CPH-CPT. Suddenly a 6350nm aircraft becomes a 5100nm-ish aircraft with real world figures.

Another interesting fact is that the longest (currently operated) A330-300 flight is the Edelweiss ZRH-CPT flight at 4900nm.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:43 am

sf260 wrote:
That is actually an interesting graph to see what (calculated) winds do to ESAD, great circle distances are 4670nm-4680nm CUN-CPH and CPH-HKG, 5380nm for CPH-SIN and CPH-CPT. Suddenly a 6350nm aircraft becomes a 5100nm-ish aircraft with real world figures.

Another interesting fact is that the longest (currently operated) A330-300 flight is the Edelweiss ZRH-CPT flight at 4900nm.


This is why it is worthless to quote distances. Time is a much more accurate way to do it.
 
whywhyzee
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:09 am

If the aircraft is close to the max on the direct GC route, then what about diversion fuel requirements, alternate airport fuel requirements, ETOPS, route, reserve and contingency fuel. It just doesn't seem feasible to fly it on anything less then the A359 or 789. Not to mention yields on such a route, especially with an all Y cabin would really struggle to break even. Seems like a lot of smoke to me.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8934
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:27 am

sunrisevalley wrote:
This is why it is worthless to quote distances. Time is a much more accurate way to do it.


Brilliant!
Only your purpose in taking an airplane is moving in space and not in time.
All the rah rah on headwinds or not is distraction.
Range reduction for that is similar for all types. A correction you have to apply to a specific route is independent of the airframe used.

@whywhyzee

payload range diagrams and brochure range are afaics invariably given with required reserves.

Never seen "down to dry tanks" range given. ( No connection to the German auto industry that hands out unbelievable mpg numbers for overweight SUVs. You'd have dry tanks long before you made distance good as computed .. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Cebu Pacific evaluating A330neo, A350 and 787 to support new long haul flights to the US

Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:54 am

KarelXWB wrote:
The A330neo might get another MTOW boost, up to 245t.


Unlikely unless it secures a sizeable new order, because of the risk to A350 sales.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos