DENTK
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:09 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:33 pm

Liquidate?
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:02 pm

Devilfish wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Well they've never actually publicly announced that they ever considered it (like I said before, it was already available during the time they were deciding between the 787 and A350, so the fact that the A330neo wasn't mentioned at the time has to say something).

The A338 wasn't available then...Airbus were just shopping it to airlines to assess potential market.

Untrue, the 800 was announced at the same time as the 900, and while it first flew about a year or two later than the 900, it doesn't change the fact that it was already on sale back when PAL was deciding.

Devilfish, I really didn't want to say this, but considering you bring up the A330-800neo all the time not just in the Philippine Aviation thread but in pretty much every thread where PR is mentioned, it genuinely feels like you're pretty much an A330-800neo fanboy and are essentially begging PAL to order it, even though you yourself admitted that it wouldn't fit all of PR's needs. Why would PR order it when PAL didn't even operate the A332? Why would they order the 800neo when it has such a niche use? Why would they order the 800neo when you yourself said that it can't do TPAC well? Why get a whole new type in the 800neo when PR already has relatively new A333s that do their job fine? And why replace those with the 800neo when the 900neo would work better as a successor? Look at it this way, if PR really wanted the 800neo, they would have ordered it by now AND Hawaiian would have never cancelled their order considering Hawaiian and PR have not dissimilar networks. If PR does decide to get A330neos in the future, it will most likely be the 900neo. The 800neo is pretty much a failure considering only Kuwait ordered them, and considering the Neo is not doing so well as a whole, that's saying a lot. Basically, it feels like you want PR to order the 800neo not necessarily for economic reasons but simply because you are a fanboy of the type.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:39 pm

Another thing I would say: build a hub that actually has banks, especially with a large morning and afternoon bank of flights. Flights to the Americas can depart to arrive late in the evening, and then depart around midnight to make the morning bank at MNL.

Within the region, the A321ceo and neo and the A330 (for higher volume routes) should be used, and the remaining 363-seat A333s (J18Y345) should be reconfigured to 309 seats (J18W24Y267 - lie flat J), then just make sure that if an A330-300 route requires 240t distance, that a 240t frame is dispatched. The B77W was needed at one time for PAL because nothing Airbus offered then had the range with 2 engines, but the 280t A359 makes that redundant...is a sub-lease possible for those frames? Smaller is better, and I'd argue that maybe densifying some A321neos might make sense...instead of a 363-seat A333, an A321 with 200 seats (Y+ and Y) might be better; it's easier to fill the plane and you don't take a significant hit on cargo capacity, especially on routes to places like Thailand.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11555
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:45 pm

The country being less of a mess would probably help.

A friend of my father's lives there, he employs an army to protect his business, men equipped with assault rifles !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:49 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Untrue, the 800 was announced at the same time as the 900, and while it first flew about a year or two later than the 900, it doesn't change the fact that it was already on sale back when PAL was deciding.

PR's second A330 IGW order came in Oct 2012, while the first batch was ordered a few months before. The A359 order came much later than that.....

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... a330s.html


The A330-800neo was launched only in July 2014. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.....

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... 0-800.html

Quote:
Airbus launched the A330neo jetliner in July 2014, comprised of two aircraft: the A330-800 and the A330-900. The A330-800 is based on the popular A330-200 and delivers significant improvements in terms of efficiency, while also launching the eye-catching Airspace by Airbus cabin that will redefine the quality of in-flight experience passengers can come to expect. Entry-into-service is expected in 2019.

I wonder if Airbus has in fact already started serial production of the A338N, as the variant is yet to gain its EASA certification.


filipinoavgeek wrote:
Why would PR order it when PAL didn't even operate the A332? Why would they order the 800neo when it has such a niche use? Why would they order the 800neo when you yourself said that it can't do TPAC well? Why get a whole new type in the 800neo when PR already has relatively new A333s that do their job fine? And why replace those with the 800neo when the 900neo would work better as a successor?
.
And look what PR ended up doing with their A333s -- they drastically reduced the seat count and reconfigured the cabin to pseudo three-class on some while retaining the two-class frames. Which they could have avoided spending extra for and paying for a bigger frame had they gone for the A332 in the first place. PR's envisioned route expansion includes fairly niche sectors that the A338 can do relatively well and at a substantially lower CAPEX. It is not to replace the A333s on the regional routes, but could also do those economically to maximize aircraft utilization.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:48 pm

Somehow I can't help but feel that there's just too much negative sentiment about PR here on A.net and it could be at least partly due to their past reputation. I mean, people here actually want it to shut down? PR has actually improved a lot in recent years: their service still has a lot to be granted and there is room for improvement, but their product is better now than it was during the SMC era when they were having an identity crisis. And some of their issues are for reasons beyond their control, notably the lack of capacity at Manila, which hurts not just PR but even rivals such as J as well as international carriers. Granted, PR hasn't always been doing so well and right now they're losing money, but they aren't struggling as hard as say Air India or Alitalia which needed actual government support to be kept afloat. I would argue even that PR is at worst not doing any worse than say MH, TG, or GI, and yet I don't really hear suggestions to shut down TG or GI (MH yes but that's more-or-less because of the recent news that it was a possibility, if an unlikely one).

As for the Philippines itself, there are way too many misconceptions here. It's true that it's not well-developed as say Singapore, Malaysia, or Indonesia. But it's not a backwater like what some people here suggest. Violence here (the terrorist type for example) is mostly limited to the south and even there progress is being made towards peace, most notably with an establishment of a new autonomous region. The economy is growing and while there are signs of a potential slowdown down the road, it's not like there's no middle class here and it is growing. They may not be the majority, but there's a reason why airlines such as Cathay or ANA have a large presence here: they're among the preferred options of those who can afford good flights but find PR's network inconvenient. There is a lot of room for improvement here and I admit that there's a long way to go, but quite a lot of the country's negative reputation here is unfounded.

Devilfish wrote:
PR's envisioned route expansion includes fairly niche sectors that the A338 can do relatively well and at a substantially lower CAPEX. It is not to replace the A333s on the regional routes, but could also do those economically to maximize aircraft utilization.

They already have certain aircraft for those niches: they're called the A350 and the A321neo. If anything, I think it would be more likely for PR to order the A321LR or even the 797 (if/when it launches) than the 800neo as those seem to be a better fit and have more support.

Devilfish wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Untrue, the 800 was announced at the same time as the 900, and while it first flew about a year or two later than the 900, it doesn't change the fact that it was already on sale back when PAL was deciding.

PR's second A330 IGW order came in Oct 2012, while the first batch was ordered a few months before. The A359 order came much later than that.....

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... a330s.html


The A330-800neo was launched only in July 2014. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.....

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passeng ... 0-800.html

Quote:
Airbus launched the A330neo jetliner in July 2014, comprised of two aircraft: the A330-800 and the A330-900. The A330-800 is based on the popular A330-200 and delivers significant improvements in terms of efficiency, while also launching the eye-catching Airspace by Airbus cabin that will redefine the quality of in-flight experience passengers can come to expect. Entry-into-service is expected in 2019.


Did you even understand my post? I was referring to the time they were choosing between the A350 and the 787, not the time they ordered their current A330s. The A330neo (both versions) were already available for ordering back in 2016. Had PAL really wanted A330neos at the time, they would have already ordered them by now. According to recent reports, there are rumors that PAL might consider 787s or neos to replace their current A330s about five to ten years from now, but if the latter does happen, expect it to be 900neo instead. Please Devilfish: don't bet on the 800neo. I mean, it's okay to be a fan of the aircraft, but you bringing it up all the time almost feels like begging at this point.

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Smaller is better, and I'd argue that maybe densifying some A321neos might make sense...instead of a 363-seat A333, an A321 with 200 seats (Y+ and Y) might be better; it's easier to fill the plane and you don't take a significant hit on cargo capacity, especially on routes to places like Thailand.

PR already has a number of low-density A321neos that they use on flights to MEL/SYD/CTS and other select regional and domestic flights.
 
User avatar
idp5601
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:09 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:31 am

ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.


IIRC, NH's deal with PR explicitly bans them from setting up an LCC.

ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.

PR did that with 2P and we all saw how that went..... :down:[/quote]

Well 2P are doing extremely well right now. PAL Express currently holds the no. 3 position among Philippine-based airlines, with 19% market share.

Doesn't sounds too bad right?[/quote]

2P is only doing well because they fly on domestic routes with very little premium demand and operate PR's turboprops.

And they're not really low cost in the same way FR or 5J are; they just have a lower cost base compared to PR mainline.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:46 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
They already have certain aircraft for those niches: they're called the A350 and the A321neo.

Their A359s are quite heavily specified (and thus more expensive) for their planned new routes...they might opt for the lower weight version if they want to stick with that type.


filipinoavgeek wrote:
If anything, I think it would be more likely for PR to order the A321LR or even the 797 (if/when it launches) than the 800neo as those seem to be a better fit and have more support.

Granted...though I doubt the 797 -- it being a whole new type and unlikely to have the legs for SEA or even YVR from MNL nonstop. I'd venture that the A321XLR would be more beneficial to them for longer regional routes as their current A321s (ceo & neo) can already do most of the present regional missions efficiently.


filipinoavgeek wrote:
Did you even understand my post? I was referring to the time they were choosing between the A350 and the 787, not the time they ordered their current A330s.

And I believe I had already answered that in #50.....
Devilfish wrote:
Didn't it occur to you that the A338 couldn't do PR's polar routes for which the A359 was primarily intended :?:

Neither can the 789 with any meaningful payload, if I may add. Only brought up the A330s due to this.....
-
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Why would PR order it when PAL didn't even operate the A332?

As a backgrounder, those A333s were flogged to PAL as HGW versions capable of doing YVR and SEA nonstop. Eventually, PR had to top up with the 240 tonner as the former were hard-pressed doing their farther ME destinations in the high density configuration. (The 242T was not yet available...I suspect it was not offered to prevent PR from switching).


filipinoavgeek wrote:
Basically, it feels like you want PR to order the 800neo not necessarily for economic reasons but simply because you are a fanboy of the type.

I have presented my rationale in a level headed manner...which sadly was not reciprocated in a similar way. Others make PAL look like a poor airline pretending to be rich to keep up with the Joneses!


filipinoavgeek wrote:
Please Devilfish: don't bet on the 800neo. I mean, it's okay to be a fan of the aircraft, but you bringing it up all the time almost feels like begging at this point.

I'm not...we are merely discussing. Sorry that you feel that way and that it has affected you so. :sorry:


aemoreira1981 wrote:
Another thing I would say: build a hub that actually has banks, especially with a large morning and afternoon bank of flights. Flights to the Americas can depart to arrive late in the evening, and then depart around midnight to make the morning bank at MNL.

CRK will have to do filling that role in the near term (you lurk in the PhilAv thread so you must be aware of the issues). "Persuading" PAL and their US-bound customers (and other airlines) to utilize it is another matter altogether.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:06 am

idp5601 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.


IIRC, NH's deal with PR explicitly bans them from setting up an LCC.

ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.

PR did that with 2P and we all saw how that went..... :down:



Soo, my theory on the fact that Philippines is not a premium heavy market is right? Who would have known?

2P is the kind of model that mainline PR should strive to became.
 
J343
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:14 am

PAL has enough A333. There is NO need for PAL to introduce another one in their fleet. Ordering more planes will do more harm than good. The obsession with PAL need to get the A330-800neo and the A380 needs to stop.

I was never a huge fan of PAL, but I'm glad they never ordered the A380. If they did, they might be be worse off than TG or MH with their A380. Before the two MH tragedies, MH was able to fill their A380s and they were flying double daily KUL-LHR but a full plane does not always turn it into profit.

I am sure the B77W, A350 and the A330 meets PAL's widebody needs. I am sure PAL makes some money on SFO/LAX routes from cargo.
 
VV
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:39 am

Stop flying?
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8285
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:01 am

To a small degree, get into a major alliance and upgrade NAIA T2. A big disincentive to fly PAL is that it isn't in an alliance so there is no incentive to build up mileage or fly them on longer services over the affiliated airlines. I have Mabuhay miles, but I only accrue domestically. Certainly, they are cheap in Business class, but part of that is because someone paying the big money would expect to be able to accrue status on a reputable alliance. If it was Star or Oneworld I would have for many more flights to my adopted second home, but I have used CX/SQ/UA/NH in general. The sad thing is, that I actually like flying PAL - service is genuine and they do a good job even compared to the big guns, but it makes no sense as part of my yearly mileage.globally.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
idp5601
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:09 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:54 am

ewt340 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.


IIRC, NH's deal with PR explicitly bans them from setting up an LCC.

ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.

PR did that with 2P and we all saw how that went..... :down:



Soo, my theory on the fact that Philippines is not a premium heavy market is right? Who would have known?

2P is the kind of model that mainline PR should strive to became.


Yeah no shit the Philippines is not a premium heavy market. Literally no-one is disputing this fact with you.

Also, PR has already attempted to adopt a hybrid LCC model in the past, and it barely changed anything (expect worsen their reputation).
 
Akiestar
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 6:51 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:06 am

ewt340 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.


IIRC, NH's deal with PR explicitly bans them from setting up an LCC.

ewt340 wrote:
PAL should have looked into establishing new subsionary as LCC to tap into the Actual market that many Southeast Asian consumers prefer.

PR did that with 2P and we all saw how that went..... :down:



Soo, my theory on the fact that Philippines is not a premium heavy market is right? Who would have known?

2P is the kind of model that mainline PR should strive to became.


Why should PR dilute its product when it is in a region where virtually all the major flag carriers in its neighborhood have a similar if not better product and level of service? If we were to go with your suggestion, I wouldn't be surprised if fewer people choose to fly PR over other, neighboring airlines. We saw this happen in the SMC era, and it'll likely happen again if they do this again.
 
Akiestar
Posts: 950
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 6:51 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:07 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Another thing I would say: build a hub that actually has banks, especially with a large morning and afternoon bank of flights. Flights to the Americas can depart to arrive late in the evening, and then depart around midnight to make the morning bank at MNL.


As far as I know, PR does this, but it can only do so much given MNL's capacity constraints.
 
LurveBus
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:33 am

No idea why this thread is still alive...

https://blueswandaily.com/philippine-ai ... the-price/

In any case PAL’s financial situation is grossly exaggerated. They aren’t consistently losing money; they do have times of profitability, although their thin margins don’t do them any favors when economic or geopolitical effects take hold. It’s not the best-run airline, for sure, but it doesn’t receive any subsidies whatsoever, so as long as it keeps going on with Lucio Tan’s or NH’s money, it shouldn’t be of much concern as taxpayers aren’t funding any of that. And should they experience a solid decade of losses and keel over, 5J (which has been consistently profitable) can easily establish an FSC arm to take its place.

To those that think that going the LCC route is the way to go, may I point out that racing 5J to the bottom is not really a good idea. 5J is pretty good at strangling LCC competition; just look at the penetration of Air Asia in the Philippines. Tony Fernandez has thrown the kitchen sink at Philippines Air Asia, and its market share is nowhere near 5Js. Besides, PAL is actually doing well in regional markets where they have 5J competition, as they’re going after different passenger profiles.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:37 am

idp5601 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:

IIRC, NH's deal with PR explicitly bans them from setting up an LCC.


PR did that with 2P and we all saw how that went..... :down:



Soo, my theory on the fact that Philippines is not a premium heavy market is right? Who would have known?

2P is the kind of model that mainline PR should strive to became.


Yeah no shit the Philippines is not a premium heavy market. Literally no-one is disputing this fact with you.

Also, PR has already attempted to adopt a hybrid LCC model in the past, and it barely changed anything (expect worsen their reputation).


Oh yeah, and when that actually happen? Never.

Just look at Vietnamese airlines. They're one of the only airlines in SEA that actually done the right thing.
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:07 am

ewt340 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
Also, PR has already attempted to adopt a hybrid LCC model in the past, and it barely changed anything (expect worsen their reputation).


Oh yeah, and when that actually happen? Never.


Are you even familiar with SMC-era PAL, which was the time they ordered the all-economy high-density A330s, as well as the A321s with no business class and no IFE?
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:14 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
Also, PR has already attempted to adopt a hybrid LCC model in the past, and it barely changed anything (expect worsen their reputation).


Oh yeah, and when that actually happen? Never.


Are you even familiar with SMC-era PAL, which was the time they ordered the all-economy high-density A330s, as well as the A321s with no business class and no IFE?


That made no sense, and that's why Lucio Tan, when he regained control of the airline, was smart to decide to reconfigure the 414-seat A333s to 309 seats. The remainder should also be reconfigured to 309 seats. One can cut capacity if true premium capacity is increased. (All are of the 240t variant; the reconfiguration can be done at the next heavy check.

As for the A321s, when the A321neos come in, all of the A321ceo aircraft can be reconfigured to a higher-density 220 seat configuration for use on domestic and less premium routes (with the A321neo having lie-flat J and being used on routes with premium demand). The ceo can be under PAL Express and the neo under PR proper.

The problem is what to do with the B77Ws; they're too new to dispose and the A359s can do their missions and better, but they have 370 seats and are hard to fill.
 
carlokiii
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:50 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The problem is what to do with the B77Ws; they're too new to dispose and the A359s can do their missions and better, but they have 370 seats and are hard to fill.

This 777 sentiment has been repeatedly brought up in this thread, yet PR has been utilizing the 777 well-enough to ensure good LF for LAX, SFO, YYZ, and YVR. The 77W is less efficient than the A359, but the A359 can’t do what the 77W does well for PR.

The 77W was too much capacity for LHR and JFK, which has since switched to the A359, yet both routes are still doing worse the the NA 77W routes... will this forum suggest dropping the A359 too?

Anyway...

To reiterate my post last week which seemed to have been largely ignored... PR is not consistently losing money. 2017 and 2018 were heavy on CapEx, which were because of, surprise, NEW aircraft! They registered losses mainly due to the increased CapEx. Yet, people who are looking solely at their recent financials are the same people suggesting PR to get newer and ~more efficient~ planes to replace the ‘less efficient’ fleet of A333 and 77W.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:06 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
idp5601 wrote:
Also, PR has already attempted to adopt a hybrid LCC model in the past, and it barely changed anything (expect worsen their reputation).


Oh yeah, and when that actually happen? Never.


Are you even familiar with SMC-era PAL, which was the time they ordered the all-economy high-density A330s, as well as the A321s with no business class and no IFE?


9-abreast A330-300 are still being used for flights to the Middle East. There's no plan to change that particular configurations.

Now, if you look at airlines like Vietnam Airlines. They didn't actually use 9-abreast on A330. They use the 8-abreast config. What they do differently is to utilize narrow-body airlines across Asia because it's cheaper to run, easier to fill and small enough to have extensive network to attract connecting passengers. Their ticket prices is one of the lowest when you are flying from SEA to East Asia or South Asia. They usually use A321.

Their company is profitable and sustainable, they are also growing. Their offering isn't as good as Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific BUT they are providing cheaper alternatives compared to Boutique Airlines and LCC.

Flew with them many times, always on time, decent service, and cheap ticket. Load factor increased from 79.3% from 2013 to 81.5% in 2017. This is what PR need to look into. Good product with affordable prices that reflect the market.

https://www.vietnamairlines.com/~/media ... nglish.pdf
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:11 pm

carlokiii wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:

The problem is what to do with the B77Ws; they're too new to dispose and the A359s can do their missions and better, but they have 370 seats and are hard to fill.

This 777 sentiment has been repeatedly brought up in this thread, yet PR has been utilizing the 777 well-enough to ensure good LF for LAX, SFO, YYZ, and YVR. The 77W is less efficient than the A359, but the A359 can’t do what the 77W does well for PR.

The 77W was too much capacity for LHR and JFK, which has since switched to the A359, yet both routes are still doing worse the the NA 77W routes... will this forum suggest dropping the A359 too?

Anyway...

To reiterate my post last week which seemed to have been largely ignored... PR is not consistently losing money. 2017 and 2018 were heavy on CapEx, which were because of, surprise, NEW aircraft! They registered losses mainly due to the increased CapEx. Yet, people who are looking solely at their recent financials are the same people suggesting PR to get newer and ~more efficient~ planes to replace the ‘less efficient’ fleet of A333 and 77W.


It's well enough until they need to retired them. They could easily sold them to BA or EK. These 2 always looking for cheap deal.

One of the interesting thing about their B777 is the fact that the configuration is pretty sparse. They could swapped B777-300ER with A350-1000 with no loss of seat counts.
Add commonality with A350-900, A330-300 and A320/A321. You got winning combinations. And since A350-1000 backlog isn't that clogged, they could get them pretty early.

Or they could wait couple more years until B777-300ER are old enough to be retired.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:57 pm

J343 wrote:
The obsession with PAL need to get the A330-800neo and the A380 needs to stop.

Surprise :!: PR is taking over KU's 10-frame A338 order..... :lol:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
carlokiii
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:46 pm

ewt340 wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:

The problem is what to do with the B77Ws; they're too new to dispose and the A359s can do their missions and better, but they have 370 seats and are hard to fill.

This 777 sentiment has been repeatedly brought up in this thread, yet PR has been utilizing the 777 well-enough to ensure good LF for LAX, SFO, YYZ, and YVR. The 77W is less efficient than the A359, but the A359 can’t do what the 77W does well for PR.

The 77W was too much capacity for LHR and JFK, which has since switched to the A359, yet both routes are still doing worse the the NA 77W routes... will this forum suggest dropping the A359 too?

Anyway...

To reiterate my post last week which seemed to have been largely ignored... PR is not consistently losing money. 2017 and 2018 were heavy on CapEx, which were because of, surprise, NEW aircraft! They registered losses mainly due to the increased CapEx. Yet, people who are looking solely at their recent financials are the same people suggesting PR to get newer and ~more efficient~ planes to replace the ‘less efficient’ fleet of A333 and 77W.


It's well enough until they need to retired them. They could easily sold them to BA or EK. These 2 always looking for cheap deal.

One of the interesting thing about their B777 is the fact that the configuration is pretty sparse. They could swapped B777-300ER with A350-1000 with no loss of seat counts.
Add commonality with A350-900, A330-300 and A320/A321. You got winning combinations. And since A350-1000 backlog isn't that clogged, they could get them pretty early.

Or they could wait couple more years until B777-300ER are old enough to be retired.


Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:55 pm

carlokiii wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
This 777 sentiment has been repeatedly brought up in this thread, yet PR has been utilizing the 777 well-enough to ensure good LF for LAX, SFO, YYZ, and YVR. The 77W is less efficient than the A359, but the A359 can’t do what the 77W does well for PR.

The 77W was too much capacity for LHR and JFK, which has since switched to the A359, yet both routes are still doing worse the the NA 77W routes... will this forum suggest dropping the A359 too?

Anyway...

To reiterate my post last week which seemed to have been largely ignored... PR is not consistently losing money. 2017 and 2018 were heavy on CapEx, which were because of, surprise, NEW aircraft! They registered losses mainly due to the increased CapEx. Yet, people who are looking solely at their recent financials are the same people suggesting PR to get newer and ~more efficient~ planes to replace the ‘less efficient’ fleet of A333 and 77W.


It's well enough until they need to retired them. They could easily sold them to BA or EK. These 2 always looking for cheap deal.

One of the interesting thing about their B777 is the fact that the configuration is pretty sparse. They could swapped B777-300ER with A350-1000 with no loss of seat counts.
Add commonality with A350-900, A330-300 and A320/A321. You got winning combinations. And since A350-1000 backlog isn't that clogged, they could get them pretty early.

Or they could wait couple more years until B777-300ER are old enough to be retired.


Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.


Uhmm, according the standard seating configurations released by Airbus. A350-1000 could carry 48 business class seat with all aisle access and 315 economy class seat in 9-abreast configurations with 32" pitch.

Looking at PR current configurations on B777-300ER. They use 42 OLD generation business class seat with no aisle access, and 328 economy class seat. So yeah.
 
LurveBus
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:04 am

ewt340 wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

It's well enough until they need to retired them. They could easily sold them to BA or EK. These 2 always looking for cheap deal.

One of the interesting thing about their B777 is the fact that the configuration is pretty sparse. They could swapped B777-300ER with A350-1000 with no loss of seat counts.
Add commonality with A350-900, A330-300 and A320/A321. You got winning combinations. And since A350-1000 backlog isn't that clogged, they could get them pretty early.

Or they could wait couple more years until B777-300ER are old enough to be retired.


Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.


Uhmm, according the standard seating configurations released by Airbus. A350-1000 could carry 48 business class seat with all aisle access and 315 economy class seat in 9-abreast configurations with 32" pitch.

Looking at PR current configurations on B777-300ER. They use 42 OLD generation business class seat with no aisle access, and 328 economy class seat. So yeah.


PR has 33in pitch in Y on their 77Ws and A359s. If they use the same on the A35K, it’s a less dense economy cabin. They could still get to 370 seats if they reduce the premium seats. In any case, nobody is certain if they’re even going to exercise the A350 options this year.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:58 am

LurveBus wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
carlokiii wrote:

Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.


Uhmm, according the standard seating configurations released by Airbus. A350-1000 could carry 48 business class seat with all aisle access and 315 economy class seat in 9-abreast configurations with 32" pitch.

Looking at PR current configurations on B777-300ER. They use 42 OLD generation business class seat with no aisle access, and 328 economy class seat. So yeah.


PR has 33in pitch in Y on their 77Ws and A359s. If they use the same on the A35K, it’s a less dense economy cabin. They could still get to 370 seats if they reduce the premium seats. In any case, nobody is certain if they’re even going to exercise the A350 options this year.


It is available. They already got their slots.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:48 pm

I've actually just booked a series of flights with them LAX-MNL- XXX, wash and repeat a few times.

Our client actually suggested PR, I took a look at a few youtube reviewers I know/trust and yes there are some shortcomings for sure, but the product looks solid and the schedule actually works out well.

The thing that amazed me was, our travel team said PR was coming out cheaper than the Chinese carriers, which of late is unheard off (though CX does show up every now and again) so maybe they are becoming super competitive on pricing to get their name back out to the public ?
 
LurveBus
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:12 am

jetwet1 wrote:
I've actually just booked a series of flights with them LAX-MNL- XXX, wash and repeat a few times.

Our client actually suggested PR, I took a look at a few youtube reviewers I know/trust and yes there are some shortcomings for sure, but the product looks solid and the schedule actually works out well.

The thing that amazed me was, our travel team said PR was coming out cheaper than the Chinese carriers, which of late is unheard off (though CX does show up every now and again) so maybe they are becoming super competitive on pricing to get their name back out to the public ?


They recently added a lot of capacity to LAX/SFO and upped frequencies to SE Asian cities. That gives them a bit more economies of scale to offer cheaper flights.
 
Ebmek
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:24 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:00 am

The worldwide market is there for O/D travel to and from the Philippines. I think the best fix for PR would be for Manila to open up a much larger airport or upgrade the current MNL to have multiple runways. Those types of plans have been in the works for YEARS with no end in sight because..politics. But it would be a simple solution to making PAL profitable. With the added slots and capacity they would be able to offer more point to point flights all across the world utilizing smaller aircraft while offering lower fares and more choice.

PAL was always the option used by the more well to do Filipinos because they have always been viewed as the more premium option. As an ethnic Filipino myself, whenever family talked about going home the LAST option was always PAL because they were always the most expensive and it takes years for Filipinos to forget that type of reputation. Travel to the Philippines, at least from the US, was always going to be on CX or CI or BR. Even HA was preferred over PR when they flew the route through HNL.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:50 pm

LurveBus wrote:
They could still get to 370 seats if they reduce the premium seats. In any case, nobody is certain if they’re even going to exercise the A350 options this year.

ewt340 wrote:
It is available. They already got their slots.

Did you mean PR already have A35K production slots assigned to them :?:


Ebmek wrote:
I think the best fix for PR would be for Manila to open up a much larger airport or upgrade the current MNL to have multiple runways. Those types of plans have been in the works for YEARS with no end in sight because..politics.

While politics is indeed mainly to blame, there is no feasible way of adding a parallel runway at NAIA short of bulldozing the existing communities adjacent to it. The temporary fix is CRK T2 and a new parallel runway which has just been announced for construction there. Remains to be seen if it's not just to earn "pogi" points for the upcoming elections. :scratchchin:


In connection with that is DOTr's bidder solicitation for the 2nd Phase of the Malolos-Clark railway project.....

https://www.philstar.com/business/2019/ ... rk-railway


Image
https://media.philstar.com/photos/2019/ ... -49-20.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Ebmek
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:24 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:00 pm

Devilfish wrote:
LurveBus wrote:
They could still get to 370 seats if they reduce the premium seats. In any case, nobody is certain if they’re even going to exercise the A350 options this year.

ewt340 wrote:
It is available. They already got their slots.

Did you mean PR already have A35K production slots assigned to them :?:


Ebmek wrote:
I think the best fix for PR would be for Manila to open up a much larger airport or upgrade the current MNL to have multiple runways. Those types of plans have been in the works for YEARS with no end in sight because..politics.

While politics is indeed mainly to blame, there is no feasible way of adding a parallel runway at NAIA short of bulldozing the existing communities adjacent to it. The temporary fix is CRK T2 and a new parallel runway which has just been announced for construction there. Remains to be seen if it's not just to earn "pogi" points for the upcoming elections. :scratchchin:


In connection with that is DOTr's bidder solicitation for the 2nd Phase of the Malolos-Clark railway project.....

https://www.philstar.com/business/2019/ ... rk-railway


Image
https://media.philstar.com/photos/2019/ ... -49-20.jpg


I'm honestly surprised that they don't just displace the people adjacent to the runway. Sounds a bit heartless, but after the fiasco that occurred during the Xiamen Airlines crash something needs to be done to increase capacity at that airport, at the very least make dual runway ops a thing. 13 would have been a good candidate until they built up the skyline on the approach end. Or, just transfer ops over to CRK completely. That airfield has literally all the space in the world and all for a (currently) tiny little terminal with two gates.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6460
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:51 pm

Ebmek wrote:
Or, just transfer ops over to CRK completely. That airfield has literally all the space in the world and all for a (currently) tiny little terminal with two gates.

Should SMC's unsolicited Bulakan Airport proposal flounder and no other proponent picks it up, odds are CRK would become the country's premier international gateway -- with NAIA serving as main capitol airport. :airplane:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
fusionliner
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:03 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:13 pm

LurveBus wrote:
They recently added a lot of capacity to LAX/SFO and upped frequencies to SE Asian cities. That gives them a bit more economies of scale to offer cheaper flights.


Looks like there are some positive stats at least for Thailand.

PAL leads the market with 40% Share of the Thailand-Philippine traffic with a goal to increase it to 45%

https://www.philstar.com/business/2019/04/09/1908372/philippine-airlines-upgauge-thailand-flights
 
fusionliner
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:03 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:13 pm

ewt340 wrote:



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-457473/

There you have it. Yes, they doubled the loss from last year (again, fuel and the fact they are in expansion mode) but posted higher revenue by 16%, driven by strong ancilliary, passenger and cargo revenue

and load factor for 2018 is 77.4%

Thought i'd share.
 
Swadian
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:13 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Load Factor was bad for PAL. It's average around 70% especially on long-haul routes.
The only way to solved them is to used smaller aircraft. I don't see B777-300ER in the fleet much longer. They should have focused on A350-900 for their long-haul operations because it's smaller and more efficient.

Also, commonality with A330 and A320/A321 is a great thing to have. B777 just ended up becoming a burden for pilot and crew training + maintenance.

And it does make sense to turn PAL into more "Affordable Airlines". Not LCC.

Philippines in General are not as rich as Singapore or Japan. They are more comparable to Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand. Most Luxury airlines from this countries also struggled because the public doesn't have the money to spent on premium products. Hence why LCC are booming here in Southeast Asia.

They should look into airlines like Finnair business model to survive. Nothing fancy, just affordable.


Finnair isn't an LLC or even "Affordable", their claim to fame is connecting pax through HEL, something that PAL can't replicate at MNL.
John Wang, Founder and President of Inland Streamliner.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:53 pm

Swadian wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Load Factor was bad for PAL. It's average around 70% especially on long-haul routes.
The only way to solved them is to used smaller aircraft. I don't see B777-300ER in the fleet much longer. They should have focused on A350-900 for their long-haul operations because it's smaller and more efficient.

Also, commonality with A330 and A320/A321 is a great thing to have. B777 just ended up becoming a burden for pilot and crew training + maintenance.

And it does make sense to turn PAL into more "Affordable Airlines". Not LCC.

Philippines in General are not as rich as Singapore or Japan. They are more comparable to Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand. Most Luxury airlines from this countries also struggled because the public doesn't have the money to spent on premium products. Hence why LCC are booming here in Southeast Asia.

They should look into airlines like Finnair business model to survive. Nothing fancy, just affordable.


Finnair isn't an LLC or even "Affordable", their claim to fame is connecting pax through HEL, something that PAL can't replicate at MNL.


Did you even read my comment? I never said Finnair is an LCC.

PAL could replicate this model for Southeast Asian cities - South Korea and Japan. And or Southeast Asia - North America, especially west coast destinations.
Manila located in a strategic locations unlike other southeast asian cities.

ANA, JAL, Asiana, Korean Air, Air China, Eva Air, all of them are located in expensive countries with higher expenditure. Operational cost in the Philippines is way lower. As well as lower tax. This is their edge.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:28 pm

carlokiii wrote:
Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.

That's because you're comparing 10 abreast with 9.

And 777 is seriously burning a lot more fuel for not many more seats; it burns some 9 ton per hour compared with less than 6 on A359. That could build up a large difference for a long distance flight (and hence why CX is replacing some 77W flights with A359!)

Michael
 
carlokiii
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:48 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.

That's because you're comparing 10 abreast with 9.

And 777 is seriously burning a lot more fuel for not many more seats; it burns some 9 ton per hour compared with less than 6 on A359. That could build up a large difference for a long distance flight (and hence why CX is replacing some 77W flights with A359!)

Michael


What do 10 vs 9 abreast and fuel consumption have got to do with A35K’s ability to match PR’s current capacity of 370-seat and cargo to North America? The discussion was about A35K replacing PR’s young fleet of 77Ws since they match capacity anyway, which I refuted.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:48 am

carlokiii wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
Doubtful PR could cram its 77W’s 370 seats (which is in no way sparse compared to TG, BR, CI, etc) plus cargo in an A35K. Especially when compared to both Cathay and Qatar’s use of 77W vs A35K:
CX: 40/32/296 vs 46/32/256
QR: 42/316 vs 46/281

While their first two 77Ws are approaching a decade old, I doubt PR will be retiring them in 2021. The rest of the fleet are much younger too. The expected CapEx and higher lease rates of new A350s to replace the 777 will be very cost prohibitive, and the 777 isn’t THAT less efficient compared to the A350 anyway to warrant such replacement, commonality and backlog considered.

That's because you're comparing 10 abreast with 9.

And 777 is seriously burning a lot more fuel for not many more seats; it burns some 9 ton per hour compared with less than 6 on A359. That could build up a large difference for a long distance flight (and hence why CX is replacing some 77W flights with A359!)

Michael


What do 10 vs 9 abreast and fuel consumption have got to do with A35K’s ability to match PR’s current capacity of 370-seat and cargo to North America? The discussion was about A35K replacing PR’s young fleet of 77Ws since they match capacity anyway, which I refuted.

You're comparing CX/QR's 77W and A35K figure. I was just pointing out that for CX/QR 77W carries a higher number of pax due to 10/9 abreast difference. Also FYI 77W and A35K both has 44 LD3 positions (although it's another matter on the weight of the cargo).

In any case you can't refuse A350 does wonder in reducing your per-trip costs due to fuel savings (capital cost is another story though), even when it might carry a slightly smaller capacity. If PR wants to be competitive it needs to drag down its cost to the best it can, Philippines is a very price sensitive market after all.

Michael
 
carlokiii
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:03 am

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:16 am

eamondzhang wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
That's because you're comparing 10 abreast with 9.

And 777 is seriously burning a lot more fuel for not many more seats; it burns some 9 ton per hour compared with less than 6 on A359. That could build up a large difference for a long distance flight (and hence why CX is replacing some 77W flights with A359!)

Michael


What do 10 vs 9 abreast and fuel consumption have got to do with A35K’s ability to match PR’s current capacity of 370-seat and cargo to North America? The discussion was about A35K replacing PR’s young fleet of 77Ws since they match capacity anyway, which I refuted.

You're comparing CX/QR's 77W and A35K figure. I was just pointing out that for CX/QR 77W carries a higher number of pax due to 10/9 abreast difference. Also FYI 77W and A35K both has 44 LD3 positions (although it's another matter on the weight of the cargo).

In any case you can't refuse A350 does wonder in reducing your per-trip costs due to fuel savings (capital cost is another story though), even when it might carry a slightly smaller capacity. If PR wants to be competitive it needs to drag down its cost to the best it can, Philippines is a very price sensitive market after all.

Michael


I know I'm comparing the 10- to a 9-abreast... and that is irrelevant. The point is that the A35K could not match the PR's 77W's capacity, which is to refute the claim in the post I replied to. As in PR would also be carrying less passengers in the A35K, as do CX and QR now. So I really do not get the need to point out the 10- vs 9-abreast case as if it would somehow help the case for the A35K to match the capacity of 77W. :lol:

I do not disagree that the A35K is more fuel efficient than the 77W, and will work wonderfully for PR if they get them, however, as long as the delta between capital expenditure (higher for A35K) and fuel consumption (higher for 77W) do not cross (among other cost considerations), there really is no reason to replace their fleet of 77W with A35K right now, at least not in the foreseeable future.

As posited thru the 2018 financial results of PR, losses from 2018 (and 2017 like I said in previous posts) were partly due to the higher lease costs of new aircraft. So to address the question of the Original Poster, suggesting new aircraft to replace their young fleet isn't what 'Philippine Airlines should do to make money'.
 
ewt340
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: What should Philippine Airlines do to make money?

Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:33 am

carlokiii wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
carlokiii wrote:

What do 10 vs 9 abreast and fuel consumption have got to do with A35K’s ability to match PR’s current capacity of 370-seat and cargo to North America? The discussion was about A35K replacing PR’s young fleet of 77Ws since they match capacity anyway, which I refuted.

You're comparing CX/QR's 77W and A35K figure. I was just pointing out that for CX/QR 77W carries a higher number of pax due to 10/9 abreast difference. Also FYI 77W and A35K both has 44 LD3 positions (although it's another matter on the weight of the cargo).

In any case you can't refuse A350 does wonder in reducing your per-trip costs due to fuel savings (capital cost is another story though), even when it might carry a slightly smaller capacity. If PR wants to be competitive it needs to drag down its cost to the best it can, Philippines is a very price sensitive market after all.

Michael


I know I'm comparing the 10- to a 9-abreast... and that is irrelevant. The point is that the A35K could not match the PR's 77W's capacity, which is to refute the claim in the post I replied to. As in PR would also be carrying less passengers in the A35K, as do CX and QR now. So I really do not get the need to point out the 10- vs 9-abreast case as if it would somehow help the case for the A35K to match the capacity of 77W. :lol:

I do not disagree that the A35K is more fuel efficient than the 77W, and will work wonderfully for PR if they get them, however, as long as the delta between capital expenditure (higher for A35K) and fuel consumption (higher for 77W) do not cross (among other cost considerations), there really is no reason to replace their fleet of 77W with A35K right now, at least not in the foreseeable future.

As posited thru the 2018 financial results of PR, losses from 2018 (and 2017 like I said in previous posts) were partly due to the higher lease costs of new aircraft. So to address the question of the Original Poster, suggesting new aircraft to replace their young fleet isn't what 'Philippine Airlines should do to make money'.


They actually could replace B777-300ER with A350-1000. They might lose like 10 economy class seats. But the seat loss is small enough compared to the high fuel savings and the decrease in expenditure of operating both Airbus and Boeing aircrafts.

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