AB330 wrote:

Still I imagine the configuration will be a balance of comfort and performance adopting the A350 XWB is likely to become the backbone of the transpacific performance.

Given what is at the other end of the spectrum a pax may well consider himself fortunate being in any of those flights above.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p7y_QsOyHQ

Small blessing that it was just a ~4+ hour ride. Note how his shoulder was squeezed into the arching plane wall. As always, one gets what he pays for...but there was just that one tiny loo forward, so he would've to do manscaping somewhere else.

RP-8786 has recently landed at MNL after being in storage for a year in half!

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1 ... html#a3675

PAL has released their first version of the Summer Timetable for 2023 on their website. Here are some of the selected highlights, highly likely to change:

International

• MNL-PEK v.v. 6x weekly. Service resumes 21 Feb, 2x weekly.
• MNL-BKK v.v. additional 4x weekly evening flights. Service brought up to 25x weekly from 21x weekly.
• MNL-BNE v.v temporary service increase to 5x weekly from 4-25 April.
• MNL-CAN v.v. brought up to 1x daily service
• MNL-HKG v.v. service increase to 5x daily
• MNL-KUL v.v. service adjustment. PR525/526 (early morning dep ex-MNL) reduced to 4x weekly from 1x daily. The three flights are replaced by a midday flight (PR527/528). Evening service(PR529/530) increased to 4x weekly from 3x weekly.
• MNL-MFM v.v. 1x daily
• MNL-JFK v.v. 4x weekly
• MNL-JJN v.v. 1x daily
• MNL-PER v.v. 3x weekly
• MNL-PVG v.v. 1x daily
• MNL-TPE v.v. increases to 2x daily service
• MNL-YYZ v.v. 2x weekly.
• MNL-SYD v.v. increases to 1x daily from 1 April (MNL dep)
• CEB-BKK v.v. scheduled until 30 May. Temporary service increase to 3x weekly from 30 March-13 April.
• CEB-ICN v.v. resumes 20 April, 1x daily
• CEB-KIX v.v. resumes, 4x weekly
• CEB-NGO v.v. resumes 3x weekly
• CEB-NRT v.v. brought up to 1x daily.
  No international flights ex-CRK listed in this version.

Domestic

• MNL-CEB v.v. 10x daily, 1/10 daily services opb Mainline
• MNL-DVO v.v. 8x daily, 1/8 daily services opb Mainline
• MNL-DGT v.v. 7 extra flights added on 26-30 April.
• MNL-PPS v.v. increases to 3x daily from 27 March, opb PALex.

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1 ... 4i740.html

Looks like plans for T2 to become a domestic terminal will be pushed this year! Some of PAL international flights will be moved to both T1 and T3.

Best guest T1 will be dedicated to long-haul flights (North America, Middle and Australia), while T3 will for Regional flights within Asia. All turboprops will likely be assigned at T4.

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

AB330 wrote:

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

Question: Speaking of NMIA, once it's operational, will we see more foreign airlines maybe even slightly more European airlines flying to the Philippines?

AB330 wrote:

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1.nabble.com/Airlines-In-The-Philippines-II-td2674i740.html

Looks like plans for T2 to become a domestic terminal will be pushed this year! Some of PAL international flights will be moved to both T1 and T3.

Best guest T1 will be dedicated to long-haul flights (North America, Middle and Australia), while T3 will for Regional flights within Asia. All turboprops will likely be assigned at T4.

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

That will make much more complicated for people connecting.....

The777Man

AB330 wrote:

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1.nabble.com/Airlines-In-The-Philippines-II-td2674i740.html

Looks like plans for T2 to become a domestic terminal will be pushed this year! Some of PAL international flights will be moved to both T1 and T3.

Best guest T1 will be dedicated to long-haul flights (North America, Middle and Australia), while T3 will for Regional flights within Asia. All turboprops will likely be assigned at T4.

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

Another reason to loathe connecting via NAIA

5J wrote:

AB330 wrote:

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1.nabble.com/Airlines-In-The-Philippines-II-td2674i740.html

Looks like plans for T2 to become a domestic terminal will be pushed this year! Some of PAL international flights will be moved to both T1 and T3.

Best guest T1 will be dedicated to long-haul flights (North America, Middle and Australia), while T3 will for Regional flights within Asia. All turboprops will likely be assigned at T4.

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

Another reason to loathe connecting via NAIA

And I hope PR could capitalize on CEB as a base and grow ops there and eventually making CEB a transit point.

AB330 wrote:

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1.nabble.com/Airlines-In-The-Philippines-II-td2674i740.html

Looks like plans for T2 to become a domestic terminal will be pushed this year! Some of PAL international flights will be moved to both T1 and T3.

Finally!

5J wrote:

Another reason to loathe connecting via NAIA

If 5J isn't happy with the arrangement, MIAA can convert T1 into a purely LCC terminal and 5J could share it with AirAsia, while basing the bulk of their operations out of CRK as originally envisioned -- being its major proponent.

Big question is what they will do to T4 if they're not tearing it down They should at least give it a major facelift and improve the landside...then expand the A/C parking apron towards the former boneyard to accommodate more TPs.

azyazy wrote:

5J wrote:

AB330 wrote:

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1.nabble.com/Airlines-In-The-Philippines-II-td2674i740.html

Looks like plans for T2 to become a domestic terminal will be pushed this year! Some of PAL international flights will be moved to both T1 and T3.

Best guest T1 will be dedicated to long-haul flights (North America, Middle and Australia), while T3 will for Regional flights within Asia. All turboprops will likely be assigned at T4.

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

Another reason to loathe connecting via NAIA

And I hope PR could capitalize on CEB as a base and grow ops there and eventually making CEB a transit point.

I agree. PR has potential to earn a good share in the Australia-US transit market. Launching direct flights ex CEB would make the experience more enticing for connecting passengers.

Devilfish wrote:

If 5J isn't happy with the arrangement, MIAA can convert T1 into a purely LCC terminal and 5J could share it with AirAsia, while basing the bulk of their operations out of CRK as originally envisioned -- being its major proponent.

Big question is what they will do to T4 if they're not tearing it down They should at least give it a major facelift and improve the landside...then expand the A/C parking apron towards the former boneyard to accommodate more TPs.

I imagine that if T4 is to be decommissioned then it would need an extension of T2 possibly Annex building to further add its capacity to allow for three terminals! The space for the old Manila domestic terminal could be used to create a new taxiway or praking area for aircraft. Longer term its possible will see RPLL being reduced to a two terminal operation once NMIA becomes the main gateway for international flights.

5J wrote:

I agree. PR has potential to earn a good share in the Australia-US transit market. Launching direct flights ex CEB would make the experience more enticing for connecting passengers.

That is a good way to reintroduce CEB-LAX flights...the transiting passengers from Oz could help ensure the sustainability of the service.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MEL-CEB-LAX-CEB-SYD&DU=nm


However, the grounding of one of PR's remaining A359s has left the airline with no right-sized equipment to operate it - their 77Ws being too much aircraft for the route. This site's Aircraft Data page shows the specs for the A340 which PR used on CEB-LAX previously.....

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data ... -200300/27


Some adjustments of the numbers in the table below could result to an aircraft closely matched for that role -- if the issue with its tail isn't a showstopper.....

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... y/a330-800

AB330 wrote:

I imagine that if T4 is to be decommissioned then it would need an extension of T2 possibly Annex building to further add its capacity to allow for three terminals!

I think the entities involved with the operations of NAIA are now keenly averse to building any new structure at that airport.

5J wrote:

azyazy wrote:

5J wrote:

Another reason to loathe connecting via NAIA

And I hope PR could capitalize on CEB as a base and grow ops there and eventually making CEB a transit point.

I agree. PR has potential to earn a good share in the Australia-US transit market. Launching direct flights ex CEB would make the experience more enticing for connecting passengers.

I fully support of PAL turning CEB as an alternative transit hub to MNL which will require a smaller wide-body aircraft for long-haul A350-900 or B787-9 with less the 300-seats between 275 to 290 pax three classes while for regional flights a mix of mostly A320neo and some A321neo which can also be used for domestic flights on select routes and lastly the Dash 8-Q400 for inter-island hopes to which GAP only has 10-12 remaining in order for CEB to sustain probably 5-8 will need to be base along with those in MNL, CRK and other big airports!

Just a thought that came to me I wonder if the A321neo will become the smallest aircraft type in PAL mainline fleet possibly followed by either the A330neo or B787 Dreamliner depending which can offer a better deal then lastly for long-haul will be dominated by the A350 XWB with both the A359 and A35K complementing each other for transpacific and european routes.

For GAP I'd imagine there main focus will be both domestic and regional routes within asia. I won't be surprised they will most likely receive both A320neo and A321neo in the future and will likely adopt a Hybird Low-cost carrier model with different levels of Economy. I wonder if they will continue to offer Business class on there A321 and in the future A321neo will depend on market conditions. But I think there is a possibility of replacing business class with a new classes in a similar vain to EuroBusiness where the middle seat is blocked and offering a bit more legroom say 33-36" the biggest advantage would be flexibility as the aircraft can be configured for example two-class with a mix of Y+ and standard Y or all-economy for point-to-point routes or where there is no demand for economy.

the traffic in manila is awful travelling in the national Capital Region. Is Clark is a better alternative?

When they’ve already implemented the terminal reassignments with T2 having all the domestic flights, hope they could close T4 and extend the length of R13.

Hope to see A330’s back in R13/31!

One of PAL’s global advertising campaign… ‘Asia’s Sunniest’

14,000 staff
36 new planes
A340 supplementing 747 in transpac flights
A330 replacing A300
A320 replacing 737
New cabin crew uniform

https://youtu.be/op1Xh3tI3ZE

Constantly being aired in CNN at that time (1997).

A year later, PAL collapsed…

edealinfo wrote:

the traffic in manila is awful travelling in the national Capital Region. Is Clark is a better alternative?

CRK is better if you are just transiting to go to other leisure destinations in the country...or if someone's picking you up -- but it's a long drive to NCR. Otherwise, there are air-conditioned P2P buses that can take you to Manila and environs - which could be a tad challenging for the uninitiated. At least the new SKYWAY sections relieve part of the hassle as one enters MM.

Bobby27ph wrote:

When they’ve already implemented the terminal reassignments with T2 having all the domestic flights, hope they could close T4 and extend the length of R13.

Highly doubtful T2 can accommodate all TP operations in addition. Also, an extension of Rwy 13 would mostly be needed for overrun protection (obstacle clearance will limit new, usable runway length.) Maybe the threshold could move a short distance.

Bobby27ph wrote:

Hope to see A330’s back in R13/31!

Have PR's A330s taken off/landed on R13/31 during a revenue pax flight I don't even remember their A300s taking off from there.

JFK to MNL
Aircraft switched from A350 to 777W.
Benefit: since 777 is a larger aircraft, got an entire row of 3 seats. Others got whole row of 4 seats.
Aggravation: Aircraft is old and food was terrible. If you can excuse the hyperbole, I mean this is the stuff you give pigs. Why ruin the joy of a direct flight (for which one pays a premium) only to be served third class food.

edealinfo wrote:

JFK to MNL
Aircraft switched from A350 to 777W.
Benefit: since 777 is a larger aircraft, got an entire row of 3 seats. Others got whole row of 4 seats.
Aggravation: Aircraft is old and food was terrible. If you can excuse the hyperbole, I mean this is the stuff you give pigs. Why ruin the joy of a direct flight (for which one pays a premium) only to be served third class food.

Pros:
• Bigger aircraft more J seats compared to 30 seats on the A350 vs 42 on the B777
• Higher capacity.

Cons:
• No Premium Economy on the B777
• Product downgraded on J from (1-2-1) on the A350 to (2-3-2) on the B777.
• Older seats on (7772 & 7777)

I'm kind of baffled why PAL doesn't plan on adding Premium Economy on the B777 on there flagship aircraft it won't be to hard or expensive as a total refurbishment and if they want to retain or remain close to the 370 seats they could add some Y more seats to make up for it. So far the only plan upgraded are for the in-flight entertainment (IFE) both content and possibly system it seem they want to maximize there used and eventually ditch them when a new aircraft becomes available they are probably avoiding D-check maintenance period which is one of the reasons why they retired the B747 despite refurbishing them only a couple of years previously!

Devilfish wrote:

Bobby27ph wrote:

Hope to see A330’s back in R13/31!

Have PR's A330s taken off/landed on R13/31 during a revenue pax flight I don't even remember their A300s taking off from there.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/philipp ... 383168385/

Yup, there was a time when jumbo jets ruled R13. Many plane spotters flock at Nayong Pilipino during the ‘80s to view planes using R13/31

In the ‘90s many residents complained about noise pollution. The aviation regulator in Phils closed R13/31 for aircraft larger than Cat C (similar to A321).

This is now reflected in RPLL NOTAM.

With PR's MNL-JFK v.v. recently switched from A359 to B77W, it has surpassed SV's JED-LAX for the current longest B77W route.

This is likely just a temporary capacity increase and won't be permanent since A359s are in use/in maintenance somewhere else.

I won't be surprised if there are payload restrictions on those flights.

The A350 is likely the correct aircraft for MNL-JFK but the B777 is a capable aircraft so a suitable substitute when so required. I'm still surprised that PR does not take full advantage of the Boeing by increasing the seating capacity past 370. For example AC B777's have 400 or 450 seats.

HJM wrote:

The A350 is likely the correct aircraft for MNL-JFK but the B777 is a capable aircraft so a suitable substitute when so required. I'm still surprised that PR does not take full advantage of the Boeing by increasing the seating capacity past 370. For example AC B777's have 400 or 450 seats.

PR had poor load factors (even pre-pandemic) using the 77W on the tag-on to JFK -- which put that route at risk of being axed. Greatly increasing the seating capacity would only exacerbate the problem.



From SkyscraperCity -- latest photo updates of land development for the NMIA in Bulakan, Bulacan.....

Source: @RexDronieTV -- 02/05/2023


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4566378/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4566379/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4566380/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4566381/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4566382/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4566384/

Posted by: @ajosh821

travelsider05 wrote:

With PR's MNL-JFK v.v. recently switched from A359 to B77W, it has surpassed SV's JED-LAX for the current longest B77W route.

This is likely just a temporary capacity increase and won't be permanent since A359s are in use/in maintenance somewhere else.

I won't be surprised if there are payload restrictions on those flights.

Definitely payload restricted. they weren't selling seats even though plenty were available. economy row passengers all the way in the back can enjoy more than 1 seat.

Devilfish wrote:

HJM wrote:

The A350 is likely the correct aircraft for MNL-JFK but the B777 is a capable aircraft so a suitable substitute when so required. I'm still surprised that PR does not take full advantage of the Boeing by increasing the seating capacity past 370. For example AC B777's have 400 or 450 seats.

PR had poor load factors (even pre-pandemic) using the 77W on the tag-on to JFK -- which put that route at risk of being axed. Greatly increasing the seating capacity would only exacerbate the problem.@ajosh821[/i]

Considering the current state of PAL long-hul fleet I don't think they consider load factor an important reason for canceling a route. Now that China and Cathay Pacific are slowly returning gonna be intresting is how they will adapt!

PR announces delivery of RP-C8786.

Of note:

With the pandemic receding and air travel recovering, PAL plans to further expand the fleet in the coming months.

https://www.philippineairlines.com/en/n ... -more-a330

Bobby27ph wrote:

One of PAL’s global advertising campaign… ‘Asia’s Sunniest’

14,000 staff
36 new planes
A340 supplementing 747 in transpac flights
A330 replacing A300
A320 replacing 737
New cabin crew uniform

https://youtu.be/op1Xh3tI3ZE

Constantly being aired in CNN at that time (1997).

A year later, PAL collapsed…

Nice find!

Philippine747 wrote:

Bobby27ph wrote:

One of PAL’s global advertising campaign… ‘Asia’s Sunniest’

14,000 staff
36 new planes
A340 supplementing 747 in transpac flights
A330 replacing A300
A320 replacing 737
New cabin crew uniform

https://youtu.be/op1Xh3tI3ZE

Constantly being aired in CNN at that time (1997).

A year later, PAL collapsed…

Nice find!

Looking back at there C11 filing and exit, I think no one expected the industry to quickly recover after the pandemic. I still it was necessary to allow for the airline to restructure its finances and agreement with lessor compaines.

As for their fleet moving forward, I expect will consist of the following types.

Mainline fleet:

A321neo supplementing and replacing A321ceo
A321LR or A321XLR supplementing A330-300 and sucessor type.
Either A330neo or B787 Dreamliner replacing the A330-300.
A350 XWB supplementing and replacing older B77W Replaced by the A35K and B779 on high capacity routes.

PAL Express

A320neo supplementing the A320ceo on international routes while CEO used for domestic routes.
A321 supplementing the A320 from major hubs like MNL, CEB, and DVO.
Dash 8-Q400 Could be replaced by Next-Generation Regional Aircraft or Electric Aircraft from Embraer or De Havilland of Canada.

Weither Airbus those launched an A220-500 I could also see 2P as a potential customer for the type. But will probably stick to the A320 family.

AB330 wrote:

Considering the current state of PAL long-hul fleet I don't think they consider load factor an important reason for canceling a route.

That's a very unorthodox view...normal thinking is to assign your limited long-haul fleet to where it would be most beneficial revenue-wise. As I said in #45 -- "I don't know about "gently used" 77Ws - am under the impression that PR is trying to move away from the type? Although after their BK exit, anything cheap would doubtless be tempting again. "

AB330 wrote:

Now that China and Cathay Pacific are slowly returning gonna be intresting is how they will adapt!

If you're still talking about the 77W here, that is under utilizing its capabilities which is resorted to when there's nowhere else (farther with bigger demand) to fly - or a plane better suited isn't available. That way, it earns its keep and doesn't sit on the ground.



Going back to NAIA...Ayala Corp's abiding interest in that airport's modernization piques one's curiousity as a report still cites their potential grouping with the Super Consortium.....

https://manilastandard.net/business/cor ... ation.html

Do they see a softening of the hardline stance on the TOR provisions of the previous dispensation with the current administration It is but natural to seek control of NAIA given its proximity to the conglomerates' new, large developments in the area. However, it seems in conflict with the groups' involvement with Sangley.


And where does that leave CRK and LIPAD Which might give SMC some pause.....

source: @Alfman Sta. Cruz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoHwLaRixug

posted by: @ajosh821 on SkyscraperCity

Devilfish wrote:

AB330 wrote:

Considering the current state of PAL long-haul fleet I don't think they consider load factor an important reason for canceling a route.

That's a very unorthodox view...normal thinking is to assign your limited long-haul fleet to where it would be most beneficial revenue-wise. As I said in #45 -- "I don't know about "gently used" 77Ws - I'm being under the impression that PR is trying to move away from the type? Although after their BK exit, anything cheap would doubtless be tempting again. "

I think the original intention was only three of the routes were to remain PAL those being LAX, SFO, and YVR with focus on regional routes with China being given higher priority. However, that didn't go according to plan with china opening its borders near the end of the year and long-haul seeing a resurgence so they need to adjust there plans to meet the new demand.

Also New York and Toronto where originally to be canceled not kept like what there doing right now!

(Double post)

AirAsia Aviation has confirmed plans to lease 15 Airbus A321neos

AirAsia Aviation president Bo Lingam says deliveries are likely to commence by end-2023 earliest, and will be earmarked for the group’s units in the region, which comprises Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, as well as Thailand.

www.flightglobal.com/fleets/airasia-tea ... 74.article

JNC03 wrote:

AirAsia Aviation has confirmed plans to lease 15 Airbus A321neos

AirAsia Aviation president Bo Lingam says deliveries are likely to commence by the end-2023 earliest and will be earmarked for the group’s units in the region, which comprises Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, as well as Thailand.

http://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/aira ... 74.article

This could free up PAA A320ceo for further domestic expansion and probably restart some canceled due to lack of aircraft.

Selected highlights from PAL timetable update as of 8 Feburary 2023:

Unreported in last update
MNL-PVG v.v. resumes 14 February, 3x weekly
MNL-JJN v.v. resumes 5 March, 3x weekly

MNL-HKG v.v. service increase adjusted. 4x daily scheduled instead of 5x daily. PR312/313 operates on 1-5 and 10 April.
MNL-PEK v.v. service increase adjusted. Initial Summer sched 4x weekly, 6x weekly from 23 April.
CEB-KIX v.v. additional flight on 1 April

Here is an interesting tidbit? How many narrow-body aircraft does PAL need?

I've been hearing that PAL has too many narrow-body aircraft (made mostly of A321s) and got me thinking about the ideal number of A321 they need. As passenger numbers are recovering and eventually grow again for key business centers, they will need larger aircraft types such as the A330neo and B787 Dreamliner which are being considered for an eventual A330 Replacement.
Alternatively, they could also use Long-haulers such as the A350 and B777 could be used to supplement either type which keeps their utilization at a high rate which seems to be the direction PR is going for to increase efficiency and reducing the number of medium-haulers which is mentioned to be 10-12 aircraft although 15 is the maximum base on the peek of their A330-300.

With those factors let's look at the narrow-body fleet! Now that the A320 has been transferred to GAP this leaves the A321 as the next smallest type within PAL fleet consisting of a mix of 18 A321ceo and 8 A321neo (which is further divided to 6 LR and 2 SR configuration), with an additional 13 in the order books scheduled to resume delivery between 2025-2026 which will gradually replace the A321ceo with some (not all) being transferred to GAP for used in domestic routes out of MNL. My assumption is PAL alone will need [
24 to 30 A321 with some being configured for longer-range routes to Australia and possibly India in the future so a small top-off is possible beyond the current order book probably 3-5 additional aircraft besides the standard A321neo I wonder if they will consider either the A321LR or A321XLR to either supplement or even replace the first 6 A321neo which are configured for long-range missions. However, are likely limited in payload and don't have the same performance as the A321LR (And even more so by the A321XLR), which leads me to believe there is likely a stop-gap until the A321XLR or something bigger say A322 becomes available and will be either transferred to GAP or returned to their lessors as for numbers I'd say 8-12 aircraft depending if PAL will expand from other hubs such as CEB, CRK, and NMIA so my final number is 24-30 aircraft (not including GAP which I'll discuss on a later post).

Do U.S. citizens, returning from Manila to the U.S., need to fill out and submit to the airline at check-in a COVID-related form? Yes, I know that it isn't relevant whether a US citizen has a vaccine or not, but nevertheless is a form required given that presumably Philippine citizens will have to fill it to show proof they are vaccinated?

edealinfo wrote:

Do U.S. citizens, returning from Manila to the U.S., need to fill out and submit to the airline at check-in a COVID-related form? Yes, I know that it isn't relevant whether a US citizen has a vaccine or not, but nevertheless is a form required given that presumably Philippine citizens will have to fill it to show proof they are vaccinated?

Yes, there is an attestation form, but only for foreigners. U.S. citizens and LPRs are not required to fill out an attestation form. The airline is supposed to give it to you, but some airlines do allow you to submit electronically or post the form as a PDF online. DL has a PDF version of the form on their website: https://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta ... igrant.pdf

Akiestar wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

Do U.S. citizens, returning from Manila to the U.S., need to fill out and submit to the airline at check-in a COVID-related form? Yes, I know that it isn't relevant whether a US citizen has a vaccine or not, but nevertheless is a form required given that presumably Philippine citizens will have to fill it to show proof they are vaccinated?

Yes, there is an attestation form, but only for foreigners. U.S. citizens and LPRs are not required to fill out an attestation form. The airline is supposed to give it to you, but some airlines do allow you to submit electronically or post the form as a PDF online. DL has a PDF version of the form on their website: https://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta ... igrant.pdf

Many thanks!

On ONE WAY flight to New York from Manila, for economy, Philippine Airlines is offering to keep a single extra seat vacant next to you for 6,500 pesos, or two seats vacant (so you get the whole row of 3 seats) for about 11,000 pesos. Or, upgrade to business from economy is about $975.
I think it is a terrific idea for the airline to monetize this when there is available space. Offer to upgrade came about 7 days before the flight.

Selected highlights from the PAL timetable update, from 13 February 2023:

International?
MNL-PUS v.v. service reduction to 4x weekly from March 4.
MNL-CAN v.v. service increase to 4x weekly from 7 March
MNL-HKG v.v. temporary service reduction, 1 of 3 daily flights (PR306/307) not operating on Feb 17/20-24/27
MNL-LAX v.v. temporary service adjustment. PR112 stops in ICN from 19 Feb-14 March, while PR 113 stops in HNL on the return leg. PR112/113 does not operate on Feb 19/20/22/23 and Mar 6/8/10/12/14. PR102/103 not operating on 1/5/8 March (MNL dep).
MNL-TPE v.v. temporary service reduction from Feb 16-23 March. Service is reduced to 1x daily flight on certain days.
MNL-XMN v.v. service increase to 3x weekly from 25 February.
CEB-NRT v.v. service increase to 4x weekly from 23 February. Extra flight on 28 Feb.

Domestic
MNL-MPH v.v. extra flight on 26 February and 12 March
MNL-USU v.v. extra flight on 27 Feb
CEB-BCD v.v. increases from 20x weekly to 3x daily from 7 March
CEB-CGY v.v. temporary service reduction to 20-22 weekly. Flight returns to 4x daily from 1 March.
CEB-BXU v.v. service increase to 11x weekly from 1 March.
CEB-DVO & DVO-ILO v.v. extra flight on 26 February.
CEB-TAC v.v. service increase to 13x weekly from 2 March.
CEB-ZAM v.v. service reduced to 6x weekly from 23 Feb-2 March. 1x daily resumes after that date.

Philippine747 wrote:

Selected highlights from the PAL timetable update, from 13 February 2023:

International?
MNL-PUS v.v. service reduction to 4x weekly from March 4.
MNL-CAN v.v. service increase to 4x weekly from 7 March
MNL-HKG v.v. temporary service reduction, 1 of 3 daily flights (PR306/307) not operating on Feb 17/20-24/27
MNL-LAX v.v. temporary service adjustment. PR112 stops in ICN from 19 Feb-14 March, while PR 113 stops in HNL on the return leg. PR112/113 does not operate on Feb 19/20/22/23 and Mar 6/8/10/12/14. PR102/103 not operating on 1/5/8 March (MNL dep).
MNL-TPE v.v. temporary service reduction from Feb 16-23 March. Service is reduced to 1x daily flight on certain days.
MNL-XMN v.v. service increase to 3x weekly from 25 February.
CEB-NRT v.v. service increase to 4x weekly from 23 February. Extra flight on 28 Feb.

Domestic
MNL-MPH v.v. extra flight on 26 February and 12 March
MNL-USU v.v. extra flight on 27 Feb
CEB-BCD v.v. increases from 20x weekly to 3x daily from 7 March
CEB-CGY v.v. temporary service reduction to 20-22 weekly. Flight returns to 4x daily from 1 March.
CEB-BXU v.v. service increase to 11x weekly from 1 March.
CEB-DVO & DVO-ILO v.v. extra flight on 26 February.
CEB-TAC v.v. service increase to 13x weekly from 2 March.
CEB-ZAM v.v. service reduced to 6x weekly from 23 Feb-2 March. 1x daily resumes after that date.

My hunch was right. With the addition of 8786 to the fleet, PR112/113 will once again operate via ICN and HNL to free up the 777 for much needed servicing and maintenance. By summer schedule effective Mar 27, JFK will increase to 4x a week while YYZ remains at 2 weekly service.

Philippine333 wrote:

AB330 wrote:

Longer-term all three carriers PAL, Cebu Pacific and Philippine Air Asia will likely move there International flights to either CRK and NMIA once operational.

Question: Speaking of NMIA, once it's operational, will we see more foreign airlines maybe even slightly more European airlines flying to the Philippines?

Yes, well probably the NA Carriers first before Europe thanks to Russia blocking it's airspace, at least NA can cross from the West all the way to the Philippines via Japan and Hawaii/Guam

Does anybody know what happened to RP-C8781? The last flight it took was DOH-MNL (I think), then it flew to CRK.

CAPA's Premium Analysis on the Sangley Airport JV agreement

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... eed-637582

If I had to guess if any North American carrier where to launch direct transpacific flight they will most likely be from canada such as AC and WS with the latter having a codeshare agreement with PR. Though not base on the North American continent HA is another potential carrier which could supplement PR frequency once they start receiving their B789 though I think starting with the A332 would be advised.

AB330 wrote:

If I had to guess if any North American carrier where to launch direct transpacific flight they will most likely be from canada such as AC and WS with the latter having a codeshare agreement with PR.

Instead of code-sharing, PR could follow what KU is doing at JFK...as YVR and SEA are just a bit farther to MNL.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... 00-in-3q24

Quote:
"We will keep our four A330-800Ns and will not replace them with the larger-variant A330-900, even though the -900 will offer a better economic footprint.

The four new A330-800s that Kuwait Airways now operates 'will be an enabler for us to get nonstop from Kuwait to North America,' Razouqi said. They 'will take us to New York JFK on better margins'."

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=KWI-JFK&DU=nm

AB330 wrote:

Though not base on the North American continent HA is another potential carrier which could supplement PR frequency once they start receiving their B789 though I think starting with the A332 would be advised.

HA had unsatisfactory results during their previous stint in the country. I think their A332s are due for retirement...while the incoming 789s have a lot of range for just HI-PH flying.

Devilfish wrote:

AB330 wrote:

If I had to guess if any North American carrier where to launch direct transpacific flight they will most likely be from canada such as AC and WS with the latter having a codeshare agreement with PR.

Instead of code-sharing, PR could follow what KU is doing at JFK...as YVR and SEA are just a bit farther to MNL.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... 00-in-3q24

Quote:
"We will keep our four A330-800Ns and will not replace them with the larger-variant A330-900, even though the -900 will offer a better economic footprint.

The four new A330-800s that Kuwait Airways now operates 'will be an enabler for us to get nonstop from Kuwait to North America,' Razouqi said. They 'will take us to New York JFK on better margins'."

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=KWI-JFK&DU=nm

AB330 wrote:

Though not base on the North American continent HA is another potential carrier which could supplement PR frequency once they start receiving their B789 though I think starting with the A332 would be advised.

HA had unsatisfactory results during their previous stint in the country. I think their A332s are due for retirement...while the incoming 789s have a lot of range for just HI-PH flying.

HA has been deffering the delivery of their first B789 until the 4Q of this year with 3 more to be delivered in 2024 and the remainder from 2023 to 2027 so will probably be holding on to their A332 until 2027 or 2028 with some being converted to freighter A330 P2F as part of an agreement with Amazon. I personally think the market between PH and HA is limited with most pax being point-to-point with codeshare between both PR and HA

As for the A338 will depend on the lessor who have controlling on PAL Holdings considers its lackluster performance could be seen high-risk unless its included in a deal for both A330neo and add A350 XWB

AB330 wrote:

HA has been deffering the delivery of their first B789 until the 4Q of this year with 3 more to be delivered in 2024 and the remainder from 2023 to 2027 so will probably be holding on to their A332 until 2027 or 2028 with some being converted to freighter A330 P2F as part of an agreement with Amazon.

Indeed I wonder if HA would've been better off if they kept their A338 order...they could be receiving their full complement of NEOs by now. No doubt Boeing made them an offer too sweet to refuse.

AB330 wrote:

As for the A338 will depend on the lessor who have controlling on PAL Holdings considers its lackluster performance could be seen high-risk unless its included in a deal for both A330neo and add A350 XWB

As I said in #35 upthread... "PR's creditors will certainly have their say." It might be way before your time, but the 757 also languished behind the 767 when both were launched. It wasn't till later that the smaller capacity plane gained traction with the airlines. As to being high-risk...the A338's touted 95% commonality with its bigger-selling sibling and presumed lower acquisition cost offset that -- while any future package deal with i.e. A350K should put much of that apprehension to rest. Were it up to me, I'd deploy the A338 on YVR-CRK and SEA-CRK instead to grow both markets as MNL is now overly saturated. Then PR can shift those to CEB-LAX on intervening days (maybe a bit of payload hit westbound) so better retain its 'W' cabin and reduce 'J' - to restart that route.

PAL is introducing Perth to its network
Wef March 2023

https://www.facebook.com/117387315866/p ... armLl/?d=n

Another A321neo marathon!