Welcome to the Philippines Aviation thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the locked 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468485

Happy New Year!

With that comes the PR timetable update, effective from last December 27, 2022. Selected highlights:

International
MNL-XMN v.v. resumes 13 January. A330 used according to Aviaroutes.
CEB-KIX v.v. runs until 3 January.
MNL-HND v.v. service increase to 2x daily from 1 March (MNL dep).
MNL-NRT v.v. service increase 11x weekly from 9 January (MNL dep). 2x daily from 2 February.
MNL-POM v.v. additional flights on 2/3 January (MNL dep)
MNL-JFK v.v. service increase to 4x weekly until 28 Jan.
MNL-PER v.v. not listed in this timetable. May be listed in the Summer timetable.

FLASH!

Philippine Airspace: Tech Issue

https://www.facebook.com/10006379637062 ... 9BEVl/?d=n

Nothing happening in Manila FIR due communications outage


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlXIL8IX0AA ... =4096x4096

Per NOTAM, Manila FIR has lost SSR, ADS-B/C, CPDLC, HF and VHF communications

Very embarrassing! Squatter na squatter na ang Pinas!

Very incompetent sa facilities management!

Now you know why MNC’s are moving to Vietnam and China!

*Philippine Aviation Thread - 2023

What a way to start 2023 in PH aviation!

As of 1600H, the system is partially restored. This might explain why 3 PAL flights from BNE, MEL, and SYD are now able to enter the airspace (and currently descending, as of this writing).

https://twitter.com/MIAAGovPH/status/16 ... 3529085952
https://www.flightradar24.com/multiview ... 7,2eb5b0b5

LAXintl wrote:

Per NOTAM, Manila FIR has lost SSR, ADS-B/C, CPDLC, HF and VHF communications

Kind someone explain how was this let to happend? Also compared to other countries what are the redundancy to avoided a similar failure?

LAXintl wrote:

Per NOTAM, Manila FIR has lost SSR, ADS-B/C, CPDLC, HF and VHF communications

Gut feeling, the equipment they use (for these comms) are sharing same power source LOL

They were just waiting for this to happen…

Can't make this up. Entire air space. Power surge will probably mean plenty of damaged equipment. The equipment will all need yo be tested for damages to confirm its usability.

You'd think redundancy would be built into the system., but apparently not.

PAL seemed to have acted like CebuPacific at several outstations like BKK. No reps, no food, no hotels. Sad expected more from a full service airline.

Current info seems to say that the aim is for operations to be back at 5am on the 2nd. I have my doubts though.

Huge backlog. This will be a royal mess for a week at least.

Watch how CAAP will try to fool the flying public.

They will reason out ‘safety concern’ as the cause of flight cancellations, and they will try to avoid mentioning ‘facilities’ or ‘fault’, ‘outage’ etc

They won’t be sorry for their negligence or poor planning.

Philippine747 wrote:

MNL-JFK v.v. service increase to 4x weekly until 28 Jan.
.

And after than drops to 3X weekly?

edealinfo wrote:

Philippine747 wrote:

MNL-JFK v.v. service increase to 4x weekly until 28 Jan.
.

And after than drops to 3X weekly?

Yep, returns to 3x weekly after that date.

Bobby27ph wrote:

Gut feeling, the equipment they use (for these comms) are sharing same power source LOL

From Arianespace's post in the PAF, these were the equipment that were supposed to replace the old system.....

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1 ... 6_HTML.jpg

Bobby27ph wrote:

They will reason out ‘safety concern’ as the cause of flight cancellations, and they will try to avoid mentioning ‘facilities’ or ‘fault’, ‘outage’ etc

The same poster above had these to say.....

Quote:
"While I admire that they are right sometimes, this time they got it all wrong. Truth is, CNS ATM are centralized by nature. They just have different terminal across the country. So when computer server goes 'whack', everything goes haywire. Meaning, blackout."

MillwallSean wrote:

You'd think redundancy would be built into the system., but apparently not.

"As for back-up, there is no back up for a 10B peso project. The old radar was reactivated to restore normalcy while new one was fixed. That is the real backup. There was no appropriation for ATM backup. We simply can't afford it."

AB330 wrote:

Also compared to other countries what are the redundancy to avoided a similar failure?

There was talk that a thoroughly modern ATC would be put up at CRK to handle all air movements in the Philippines' FIR...but that seems to have gone to the backburner with LIPAD's control transition and the delayed work on the new tower.....


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4372548/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4372546/

Photos posted on SkyscraperCity by @ajosh821


Good thing these passengers went thru CRK a day before thus avoiding the general malaise.....


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4380352/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4380355/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4380350/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4380353/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4380351/



https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4380354/

Photos posted on SkyscraperCity by @mnemonick

Devilfish wrote:

Bobby27ph wrote:

Gut feeling, the equipment they use (for these comms) are sharing same power source LOL

From Arianespace's post in the PAF, these were the equipment that were supposed to replace the old system.....

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1 ... 6_HTML.jpg

Bobby27ph wrote:

They will reason out ‘safety concern’ as the cause of flight cancellations, and they will try to avoid mentioning ‘facilities’ or ‘fault’, ‘outage’ etc

The same poster above had these to say.....

Quote:
"While I admire that they are right sometimes, this time they got it all wrong. Truth is, CNS ATM are centralized by nature. They just have different terminal across the country. So when computer server goes 'whack', everything goes haywire. Meaning, blackout."

MillwallSean wrote:

You'd think redundancy would be built into the system., but apparently not.

"As for back-up, there is no back up for a 10B peso project. The old radar was reactivated to restore normalcy while new one was fixed. That is the real backup. There was no appropriation for ATM backup. the Philippines' FIR...but that seems to have gone to the backburner with LIPAD's control transition and the delayed work on the new tower.....


https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... 4372548/We simply can't afford it."

AB330 wrote:

Also compared to other countries what are the redundancy to avoided a similar failure?

There was talk that a thoroughly modern ATC would be put up at CRK to handle all air movements in

Ok that explains it makes me concerned such a failure can happend this crisis cause the DOTr secretary his job which makes me wonder if El Kapitan may want him back?

Devilfish wrote:

From Arianespace's post in the PAF, these were the equipment that were supposed to replace the old system.....

http://philippine-aviation-forum.259.s1 ... 6_HTML.jpg

Bobby27ph wrote:

They will reason out ‘safety concern’ as the cause of flight cancellations, and they will try to avoid mentioning ‘facilities’ or ‘fault’, ‘outage’ etc

The same poster above had these to say.....

Quote:
"While I admire that they are right sometimes, this time they got it all wrong. Truth is, CNS ATM are centralized by nature. They just have different terminal across the country. So when computer server goes 'whack', everything goes haywire. Meaning, blackout."

They should have ups (uninterruptible power supply) for their critical equipment like CNS.

Comms equipment, Nav equipment, Surveillance equipment may work independently. Server does not affect power source, it’s the other way around.

The issue is not a server outage, it is a power outage.

Although it could be true, that the power source is centralized.

Banks and govt agencies like CAAP all have UPS.

They must make sure their UPS is in good working condition. There is even a annual testing for UPS, which involves simulated outage.

If this fails, it is laughable! Total disgrace!

CAAP terribly failed as an aviation regulator! And this is not the first time!

From SkyscraperCity -- latest status photos of NMIA site development in Bulakan, Bulacan.....

Source: @Alfman Cruz FB page


https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=63C2BD33



https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=63C32DB4



https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=63C3090A



https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=63C3C62F



https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=63C36E0B



https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=63C32556

Photos posted by: @ajosh821


So far, so good...slowly but surely! Just have to ascertain that the finished runway elevations will last at least 50 years before inundation - either thru subsidence or climate change.

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

PR offers some good connections options out of AU - how is the transfer process ex-MNL? Be great to see them promote more for the AU point of sale.

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

PR offers some good connections options out of AU - how is the transfer process ex-MNL? Be great to see them promote more for the AU point of sale.

PR's A321neos are not LRs, they're just standard A321neos in a less dense layout (With flatbeds).

Their other A321neo config is the domestic/short haul international layout in a more dense config with the now standard 'Flex' door arrangements.

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

PR offers some good connections options out of AU - how is the transfer process ex-MNL? Be great to see them promote more for the AU point of sale.

Yes. MEL and SYD are PR's furthest A321neo route they've flown, but those destinations are not regular A321neo routes. BNE is PR's furthest regular A321neo route.
Do note that PR does not operate the A321LR variant. However, their non-ACF A321neos are equipped with extra fuel tanks which have longer range than a standard A321neo.

SCFlyer wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

PR offers some good connections options out of AU - how is the transfer process ex-MNL? Be great to see them promote more for the AU point of sale.

PR's A321neos are not LRs, they're just standard A321neos in a less dense layout (With flatbeds).

Their other A321neo config is the domestic/short haul international layout in a more dense config with the now standard 'Flex' door arrangements.

I wonder sometimes if the six A321neoLR PAL aquired was a "stop-gap" solution until newer variants of the A321neo such as the LR and ULR with the former being active and soon the latter next year! PAL still has 13 A321neo on order though I imagine they will not be converted to either the LR and ULR. Though follow-on orders may be made to replace the current A321neo which could be converted to standard version for domestic used or return to there lessors? Though its also possible they will remain with there current configuration which will supplemented either A321LR and ULR.

AB330 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

PR offers some good connections options out of AU - how is the transfer process ex-MNL? Be great to see them promote more for the AU point of sale.

PR's A321neos are not LRs, they're just standard A321neos in a less dense layout (With flatbeds).

Their other A321neo config is the domestic/short haul international layout in a more dense config with the now standard 'Flex' door arrangements.

I wonder sometimes if the six A321neoLR PAL aquired was a "stop-gap" solution until newer variants of the A321neo such as the LR and ULR with the former being active and soon the latter next year! PAL still has 13 A321neo on order though I imagine they will not be converted to either the LR and ULR. Though follow-on orders may be made to replace the current A321neo which could be converted to standard version for domestic used or return to there lessors? Though its also possible they will remain with there current configuration which will supplemented either A321LR and ULR.

As mentioned by travelsider05, the 6 A321neo in question at PR are not A321LRs, they're just A321neos (non-ACF configuration) with extra tank fitted.

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

PR offers some good connections options out of AU - how is the transfer process ex-MNL? Be great to see them promote more for the AU point of sale.

BNE and POM are the furthest PR sends the A321 "LR" config, but Perth would probably take the cake when it starts in March. MEL & SYD is all A330 now.

Other "LR" routes include MNL-KIX/NRT/NGO/FUK/BKK/KUL/SIN/DPS. These may alternate with the "SR" config or the CEO usually. In some cases, MNL-CEB/DVO gets the A321neo but more often than not you will receive an A321ceo.

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

AKL ideally would be within the range as well if it were still existing I believe, but this route since hasn't returned since 2020. Will AKL be back for PR though? Also, if PR can bring back PER plans after a 3 year hiatus, will they ever bring back IN plans specifically to DEL that should've existed in 2019?

Philippine333 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

AKL ideally would be within the range as well if it were still existing I believe, but this route since hasn't returned since 2020. Will AKL be back for PR though? Also, if PR can bring back PER plans after a 3 year hiatus, will they ever bring back IN plans specifically to DEL that should've existed in 2019?

I think AKL have a chance of return, it's just a matter of when, and the fleet, seems the A330 looks a little bit stretch in usage now. Hoping AKL would return, but with the original timing and not a 6am departure from Manila. Auckland is currently served with Air NZ interline from Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney (based on PAL's website). Delhi seems impossible for now.

Philippine333 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Hi all!

Just wondered where PR sends their 321LR, is MEL and SYD the furthest routes they send them on? Very excited to see PER back!

AKL ideally would be within the range as well if it were still existing I believe, but this route since hasn't returned since 2020. Will AKL be back for PR though? Also, if PR can bring back PER plans after a 3 year hiatus, will they ever bring back IN plans specifically to DEL that should've existed in 2019?

The existing NEOs don't have the legs for AKL non-stop. There was a period during Covid where they ran them on MNL-BNE-AKL v.v.

There are plans to resume India service, but nothing definite announced yet:

https://business.inquirer.net/376285/th ... -this-year

dhdaviation wrote:

I think AKL have a chance of return, it's just a matter of when, and the fleet, seems the A330 looks a little bit stretch in usage now.

Philippine747 wrote:

The existing NEOs don't have the legs for AKL non-stop.

Neither will the XLR it seems -- without taking a payload penalty. PR could pick up a haul of ntu A339s to reinforce its regional fleet if their bankruptcy restructuring allows such and they could afford it.



https://aircraft.airbus.com/sites/g/fil ... k=7ATeTGyI

Failing that and on pain of being raked over coals for stubbornness, perhaps PR could short lease a couple of A338s? Perfect for AKL, solves their range problem, has more room for revenue cargo, and can be deployed on emerging, long-haul routes in their network.

SCFlyer wrote:

AB330 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

PR's A321neos are not LRs, they're just standard A321neos in a less dense layout (With flatbeds).

Their other A321neo config is the domestic/short haul international layout in a more dense config with the now standard 'Flex' door arrangements.

I wonder sometimes if the six A321neoLR PAL aquired was a "stop-gap" solution until newer variants of the A321neo such as the LR and ULR with the former being active and soon the latter next year! PAL still has 13 A321neo on order though I imagine they will not be converted to either the LR and ULR. Though follow-on orders may be made to replace the current A321neo which could be converted to standard version for domestic used or return to there lessors? Though its also possible they will remain with there current configuration which will supplemented either A321LR and ULR.

As mentioned by travelsider05, the 6 A321neo in question at PR are not A321LRs, they're just A321neos (non-ACF configuration) with extra tank fitted.

PAL considers them LR mainly due to there less dense configuration and used on medium-haul flights 6-7 hours. While the standard A321neo are known as [SR] Short Range with a higher capacity at 195 seats compared to 168 on the LR. Its a bit confusing honestly they should just be called A321neo with ACT Additional Center Tanks. Anywas as for AKL I don't think will see it resume until PAL could find a spare capacity one of the reasons why I think they should consider taking NTU A330-300 assuming there still available? If not then maybe take newer A333 in the market at less those built 2013-Onwards. As for new aircraft orders the A321XLR maybe better suited for AKL if they want to resume the route and increasing frequency with 1-1 Business Class of 16 seats, 12 Premium Economy in a 2-2 layout and 138 Economy seats in a 3-3 configuration for 166 seats! Although There is also Devilfish favorite aircraft the A330-800neo along with the A330-900neo or just the A339 if both AB and RR can offer an ideal packaged within this year or 2024.

Devilfish wrote:

dhdaviation wrote:

I think AKL have a chance of return, it's just a matter of when, and the fleet, seems the A330 looks a little bit stretch in usage now.

Philippine747 wrote:

The existing NEOs don't have the legs for AKL non-stop.

Neither will the XLR it seems -- without taking a payload penalty. PR could pick up a haul of ntu A339s to reinforce its regional fleet if their bankruptcy restructuring allows such and they could afford it.

I am curious also as to what the cargo and LF numbers are on those flights. If anything, the A321 might be a bit too small.

AB330 wrote:

Anywas as for AKL I don't think will see it resume until PAL could find a spare capacity one of the reasons why I think they should consider taking NTU A330-300 assuming there still available? If not then maybe take newer A333 in the market at less those built 2013-Onwards.

There are no more "white tail" unsold A330ceos AFAIK. If AirAsia X dumps quite a bit of their fleet, that might be a good source of new birds. The ex-Level birds mentioned in the previous threads are also a good source, but would PR be willing to go back to using the GE? Then again, there are A330 operators who operate multiple engine variants (e.g. Turkish who operates the PW, RR, and GE).

Philippine747 wrote:

AB330 wrote:

Anywas as for AKL I don't think will see it resume until PAL could find a spare capacity one of the reasons why I think they should consider taking NTU A330-300 assuming there still available? If not then maybe take newer A333 in the market at less those built 2013-Onwards.

There are no more "white tail" unsold A330ceos AFAIK. If AirAsia X dumps quite a bit of their fleet, that might be a good source of new birds. The ex-Level birds mentioned in the previous threads are also a good source, but would PR be willing to go back to using the GE? Then again, there are A330 operators who operate multiple engine variants (e.g. Turkish who operates the PW, RR, and GE).

Speaking of AirAsiaX some of PAL Tri-class A330-300 will be operating with them at this time it will be odd for them to those birds in exachged for an inferior product unless PAL decided to $$$ on there interiors and adding IFE. As for the LEVEL A332 maybe they could be operated by GAP for Middle East Routes while freeing up the A330 for mainline operations?

Not listed in the timetable, but PR is resuming service to Guangzhou effective 14 January 2022. A330 initially used, but switching to A321 from the 28th.


From 28 Jan:



https://www.philippineairlines.com/news ... january-14

AB330 wrote:

Philippine747 wrote:

AB330 wrote:

Anywas as for AKL I don't think will see it resume until PAL could find a spare capacity one of the reasons why I think they should consider taking NTU A330-300 assuming there still available? If not then maybe take newer A333 in the market at less those built 2013-Onwards.

There are no more "white tail" unsold A330ceos AFAIK. If AirAsia X dumps quite a bit of their fleet, that might be a good source of new birds. The ex-Level birds mentioned in the previous threads are also a good source, but would PR be willing to go back to using the GE? Then again, there are A330 operators who operate multiple engine variants (e.g. Turkish who operates the PW, RR, and GE).

Speaking of AirAsiaX some of PAL Tri-class A330-300 will be operating with them at this time it will be odd for them to those birds in exachged for an inferior product unless PAL decided to $$$ on there interiors and adding IFE. As for the LEVEL A332 maybe they could be operated by GAP for Middle East Routes while freeing up the A330 for mainline operations?

That is true, a refurbishment should be in order to bring it in line with the rest of the fleet. The question is, would the A330-200 be competitive with the reduced cargo hold space compared to the A330-300 as well? Weight wise, some of the Iberia/Level A330s are the 242t variant.

Transferring the A330s to GAP would probably not generate much of a benefit.

Philippine747 wrote:

I am curious also as to what the cargo and LF numbers are on those flights. If anything, the A321 might be a bit too small.

Those couldn't be much considering the current state of the industry and that PR is able to adequately serve AKL via BNE. However, traffic demand must be poised for an upswing after being held back for quite a long stretch...though not so high as to "overload" an A332 or A338.

Philippine747 wrote:

That is true, a refurbishment should be in order to bring it in line with the rest of the fleet. The question is, would the A330-200 be competitive with the reduced cargo hold space compared to the A330-300 as well? Weight wise, some of the Iberia/Level A330s are the 242t variant.

As it happens, SAS is returning a "newish" A330 to its lessor (~7.5 yo, maybe RR powered, ff 4x 2015 vintage birds) -- airline said interest payments due today won't be paid. Would be timely if PR get first dibs on those presuming they could afford the new lease terms.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/s ... 19.article

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... to-lessors


And as a sidebar to MNL's New Year ATMC chaos.....

https://www.philippineairlines.com/en/n ... to-proceed

Devilfish wrote:

As it happens, SAS is returning a "newish" A330 to its lessor (~7.5 yo, maybe RR powered, ff 4x 2015 vintage birds) -- airline said interest payments due today won't be paid. Would be timely if PR get first dibs on those presuming they could afford the new lease terms

Will depend on the lessor compaines I imagine they won't be as high as either the A330neo and A350 so could be good to look at although I think PAL is priortized long-haul aircraft like the A350 and B777

I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

AB330 wrote:

Will depend on the lessor compaines I imagine they won't be as high as either the A330neo and A350 so could be good to look at.

PR's creditors will certainly have their say. Should engines be a problem, an alternative could be TAP's A332s - if the airline was looking to unload those.....

AB330 wrote:

I think PAL is priortized long-haul aircraft like the A350 and B777. I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

Per the PAF site administrator, 4x A359s seconded to LH will revert to their former 318-seat configuration in May, for eventual return to PR's fleet. That's probably the best outcome which can be expected. Were more capacity still be needed, new sculpted sidewall A35Ks could be ordered to replace their older 77Ws as those retire. That leaves PR's potential long, thin routes out of suitable equipment. This is where Airbus could come in with a killer package!


Finally, something that looks much better and more 'promising' for NMIA came to light from SMC.....

Source: @daxlucas tweet ........... posted on SkyscraperCity by: @ajosh821

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/ ... g.4443841/


Much smoother circulation layout than the seven concourse design previously. Who's betting ACCIONA would bid aggressively for the PTB construction

Devilfish wrote:

AB330 wrote:

Will depend on the lessor compaines I imagine they won't be as high as either the A330neo and A350 so could be good to look at.

PR's creditors will certainly have their say. Should engines be a problem, an alternative could be TAP's A332s - if the airline was looking to unload those.....

AB330 wrote:

I think PAL is priortized long-haul aircraft like the A350 and B777. I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

Per the PAF site administrator, 4x A359s seconded to LH will revert to their former 318-seat configuration in May, for eventual return to PR's fleet. That's probably the best outcome which can be expected. Were more capacity still be needed, new sculpted sidewall A35Ks could be ordered to replace their older 77Ws as those retire. That leaves PR's potential long, thin routes out of suitable equipment. This is where Airbus could come in with a killer package!:stirthepot:

The A332 could be a good candidate for a middle-market aircraft between the A321 and A333 which leave the possibility of PAL acquring between 4-5 A332 or A338 with 8-11 A333 or A339. With regard to the A359 I think PAL will add between 23 seats (2 in business class and 21 economy class) with the final configuration likely looking like this 32 Business, 24 Premium Economy (assuming PAL is keeping them) and 262 Regular Economy seats for 318 seats. Changes included removing the Lavs after doors 1 and adding 1 behind the cockpit while keeping those after doors and allowing one as a mix bussiness/premium economy after doors 2 there could be 17 rows (3 PE and 14 ECY), after doors 3 Lav will be keep with the galley being removed for 16 rows center and 15 rows on each side. And expanding the rear galley while having 1 lav to reduce foot traffic to reduce disruption cause by pax visitng the lavs. Lastly with regards to the A35K its up to management if they want to commit all of there options to A35K or at less have 2 be A359 and 4 A35K with more likely to be ordered to fully replace the B77W in the future. At minimum PAL will need between 18 to 21 long-haul aircraft to maintain its long-haul network assuming 2 per route instead of 3 per route which seem to be the standard for long-haul distribution.

Strange story, but 10 PAL crew members are under investigation for smuggling onions and fruits from Riyadh and Dubai back to the Philippines.

https://mothership.sg/2023/01/philippin ... ng-onions/

mercure1 wrote:

Strange story, but 10 PAL crew members are under investigation for smuggling onions and fruits from Riyadh and Dubai back to the Philippines.

https://mothership.sg/2023/01/philippin ... ng-onions/

This is not unusual, pilots and cabin crew usually shop a lot overseas.

Not necessarily for luxury goods hahaha

Not sure why need to make a big hooha about this… maybe BOC’s propaganda?

Tbh, BOC is one of the most corrupt govt agencies in the Phils!

Devilfish wrote:

Per the PAF site administrator, 4x A359s seconded to LH will revert to their former 318-seat configuration in May, for eventual return to PR's fleet. That's probably the best outcome which can be expected. Were more capacity still be needed, new sculpted sidewall A35Ks could be ordered to replace their older 77Ws as those retire. That leaves PR's potential long, thin routes out of suitable equipment. This is where Airbus could come in with a killer package! :

Hold on... aren't PAL's A350s in a 295-seat config?

Also, apparently LH has filed initial schedules for the 318-seat A350 from June. Of note is that the ex-PAL A350 configuration is not filed from 26 March to 29 May.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230112-lh359

AB330 wrote:

I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

Wonder who they'll get it from. Would love to see some extra A350s join the fleet.

Bobby27ph wrote:

Not sure why need to make a big hooha about this… maybe BOC’s propaganda?

Perhaps they needed a 'tearjerker' to divert attention and to improve their ratings come DOF's 'performance' evaluations?

Philippine747 wrote:

Hold on... aren't PAL's A350s in a 295-seat config? Also, apparently LH has filed initial schedules for the 318-seat A350 from June.

I totally forgot about that. Reading through your link, I can see where the confusion might have started.

Philippine747 wrote:

Of note is that the ex-PAL A350 configuration is not filed from 26 March to 29 May.

Maybe PR found LH's denser seating as more beneficial going forward...that they will use that period to reconfigure the 4 frames to 318 seats before reintroducing same to service? IIRC, Airbus went on record saying they were ready to help PR in this regard -- though of the fleet, the A359s were left untouched.

Philippine747 wrote:

Wonder who they'll get it from. Would love to see some extra A350s join the fleet.

Of course, the envisioned change above could render those A359s unfit for nonstop flights to JFK and YYZ. Might PR consider looking at SGs ULR birds for adaption, as the latter can be replaced by newer models coming on line in the near term These are low-cycle frames which may be priced attractively.

Any further discussions or rumors about PAL joining an alliance? Also, it was my understanding that all of the A330's had been refurbished but I saw a youtube vid yesterday in which it seems they are not?

Philippine747 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Per the PAF site administrator, 4x A359s seconded to LH will revert to their former 318-seat configuration in May, for eventual return to PR's fleet. That's probably the best outcome which can be expected. Were more capacity still be needed, new sculpted sidewall A35Ks could be ordered to replace their older 77Ws as those retire. That leaves PR's potential long, thin routes out of suitable equipment. This is where Airbus could come in with a killer package! :

Hold on... aren't PAL's A350s in a 295-seat config?

Also, apparently LH has filed initial schedules for the 318-seat A350 from June. Of note is that the ex-PAL A350 configuration is not filed from 26 March to 29 May.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230112-lh359

AB330 wrote:

I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

Wonder who they'll get it from. Would love to see some extra A350s join the fleet.

Yes there configured at 295 seats I wonder if they will be fitted with LH onboard products? Personally I could see PAL and LH collaborate on seat product to further reduced maintenance cost for both carriers. Although most of this is speculation on my part!

deltatrav wrote:

Any further discussions or rumors about PAL joining an alliance? Also, it was my understanding that all of the A330's had been refurbished but I saw a youtube vid yesterday in which it seems they are not?

All of the 414-seat config A330s (RP-C878X) have been reconfigured with the new product. However there are still A330s in the high-density 363-seat config (RP-C876X/71).

Devilfish wrote:

I totally forgot about that. Reading through your link, I can see where the confusion might have started.

Philippine747 wrote:

Of note is that the ex-PAL A350 configuration is not filed from 26 March to 29 May.

Maybe PR found LH's denser seating as more beneficial going forward...that they will use that period to reconfigure the 4 frames to 318 seats before reintroducing same to service? IIRC, Airbus went on record saying they were ready to help PR in this regard -- though of the fleet, the A359s were left untouched.

Philippine747 wrote:

Wonder who they'll get it from. Would love to see some extra A350s join the fleet.

Of course, the envisioned change above could render those A359s unfit for nonstop flights to JFK and YYZ. Might PR consider looking at SGs ULR birds for adaption, as the latter can be replaced by newer models coming on line in the near term These are low-cycle frames which may be priced attractively.

No worries, I can see why the confusion would happen :p

You do make a good point though with the planned reconfig. However PAL's A350s are the odd ones out in the LH fleet, so I guess they want to bring it in line with other aircraft.

The ULRs would be a bit iffy, since they trade cargo volume for fuel. Not sure if the extra fuel tanks can be removed. However I think they could use the MTOW bump up on those frames. Aren't there some gently used 77Ws out there too?

Mods... please delete - double post. Thank you.

Philippine747 wrote:

The ULRs would be a bit iffy, since they trade cargo volume for fuel. Not sure if the extra fuel tanks can be removed. However I think they could use the MTOW bump up on those frames. Aren't there some gently used 77Ws out there too?

It appears feasible per this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1466741&start=200 ; just a question if the expected lower price/frame would be worth the costs of required modifications. I don't know about "gently used" 77Ws - but 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.

Speaking of which reminds me of the "complaints" about the "inconvenience" posed to travelers when one of PR's 77Ws was chartered for the WEF. Made me wonder if a sovereign fund could "inspire" Malacañang to do a JOKO .....



An apt backdrop on whether or not to "privatize" NAIA operations.....

Devilfish wrote:

Philippine747 wrote:

The ULRs would be a bit iffy, since they trade cargo volume for fuel. Not sure if the extra fuel tanks can be removed. However I think they could use the MTOW bump up on those frames. Aren't there some gently used 77Ws out there too?

It appears feasible per this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1466741&start=200 ; just a question if the expected lower price/frame would be worth the costs of required modifications. I don't know about "gently used" 77Ws - but 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.

With further PIP Underway for the A350XWB not just increasing the cabin width. But also moving the rear bulk heads to increase the space in the rear cabin allowing for the removal of center door 3 galley allowing then to be used for 6 seats! Could also adjust the center lavatories to allow for a further 3 seats and removing the closet behind the rear lavatory for 3 seats. And lastly the removal of the closet behind Premium Economy and replacing then with either a thin divider or curtains can allow for a further row of Y or 6 seats for a total capacity of 262!

This is my best guess for how will PAL added Y seats while marginally maintating a comfiy legroom of 32" as for PE I could see the removal of 1 lavatory behind doors 2 to allow for a row of PE to be added although will wait for further details on LH refurbishment?

AB330 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Will depend on the lessor compaines I imagine they won't be as high as either the A330neo and A350 so could be good to look at although I think PAL is priortized long-haul aircraft like the A350 and B777
I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

It seems like PR, which flies 3X direct weekly to JFK, made a change and is instead using 777 on 1 day of the week. Any reason why the substitution was made? What happens to those booked on premium economy which is available on the A350 but not on the 777? Do they all get upgraded to business class or get a partial refund?

edealinfo wrote:

AB330 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Will depend on the lessor compaines I imagine they won't be as high as either the A330neo and A350 so could be good to look at although I think PAL is priortized long-haul aircraft like the A350 and B777
I've heard rumors of 2 used B77W being acquired although no new development whither it will proceed or AB is offering a better package.

It seems like PR, which flies 3X direct weekly to JFK, made a change and is instead using 777 on 1 day of the week. Any reason why the substitution was made? What happens to those booked on premium economy which is available on the A350 but not on the 777? Do they all get upgraded to business class or get a partial refund?

Depends some pax will likely be upgraded to Business Class which is a boom if its the newer triple seven (7778 to 7782). Marginally better on the older 777 like (7772 to 7777) assuming the seat is still working it still a lie-flat seat over a recliner.

But that is only 12 seats the other half will likely be downgraded to regular economy and must seek reimbursement or refund the amount for being downgraded which is painful process looking at PAL refund policy is tideous considering they don't have there own call center anymore! As for why the B777 still isn't fitted with PE? Its likely because they won't last long in PAL fleet and will be replace soon with a new type ex: A350-1000.

AB330 wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

AB330 wrote:

It seems like PR, which flies 3X direct weekly to JFK, made a change and is instead using 777 on 1 day of the week. Any reason why the substitution was made? What happens to those booked on premium economy which is available on the A350 but not on the 777? Do they all get upgraded to business class or get a partial refund?

Depends some pax will likely be upgraded to Business Class which is a boom if its the newer triple seven (7778 to 7782). Marginally better on the older 777 like (7772 to 7777) assuming the seat is still working it still a lie-flat seat over a recliner.

But that is only 12 seats the other half will likely be downgraded to regular economy and must seek reimbursement or refund the amount for being downgraded which is painful process looking at PAL refund policy is tideous considering they don't have there own call center anymore! As for why the B777 still isn't fitted with PE? Its likely because they won't last long in PAL fleet and will be replace soon with a new type ex: A350-1000.

Thanks.

edealinfo wrote:

AB330 wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

It seems like PR, which flies 3X direct weekly to JFK, made a change and is instead using 777 on 1 day of the week. Any reason why the substitution was made? What happens to those booked on premium economy which is available on the A350 but not on the 777? Do they all get upgraded to business class or get a partial refund?

Depends some pax will likely be upgraded to Business Class which is a boom if its the newer triple seven (7778 to 7782). Marginally better on the older 777 like (7772 to 7777) assuming the seat is still working it still a lie-flat seat over a recliner.

But that is only 12 seats the other half will likely be downgraded to regular economy and must seek reimbursement or refund the amount for being downgraded which is painful process looking at PAL refund policy is tideous considering they don't have there own call center anymore! As for why the B777 still isn't fitted with PE? Its likely because they won't last long in PAL fleet and will be replace soon with a new type ex: A350-1000.

Thanks.

You're welcome speaking of A350-1000 from another fourm there is a user who seem to be pushing for PAL to adopted a 10-abreat configuration. So far the airline has so far decided to prefer a 9-abreast configuration considering payload limitations may affect the aircraft performance. 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.