15 February 2018
 |
| Airbus A350-1000 demonstration tour arrived in Manila closed to midnight for final sale pitch with flag carrier Philippine Airlines which manifest intent to add the type to its growing A350 fleet. |
350-900 and 350-1000 will sure look good in PAL inventory.
ReplyDeletePAL has a better chance of achieving 5-star status should it consider reviving 'maharlika' first class. and the longer a350-1000 could be the perfect aircraft. although I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteBR and HU have both 5-stars and don't have First class cabin IMO its a risky decision for PAL to revived First Class and could lead to financial consequence an example would be GA I've heard many praise about thier first class on thier B777-300s and it is excellent onboard product. However GA is not doing financially and out of 10 B777s only 2 have the first class cabin in a three-class layout while the remaining are in a two-class layout without first class would not be suprised if they re-configured the remaining 2 three-class B777 to two-class in the future.
ReplyDeleteyes. but still GA kept the first class cabin because there is a niche market for it, and so that it can maintain its 5-star status even though they've been cost-cutting recently. GA's mistake was they installed 8 suites, when they are never fully-occupied at any time. MH is also serious in regaining their 5-star status that's why they opted for 4 suites upfront their A350-900, and is the only carrier so far to offer F class on A350. BR on the other hand, I noticed that even though they don't have F class and their business class seats are only bare bones, they invested heavily on soft product. like they offer padjamas and bedding in long-haul flights. catering is also superbly gourmet and excellent presentation, and their champagne (Krug Grande Cuvee, and for a limited time Krug Rose) is normally served in F class but they serve it in business. their lounges are excellent too. maybe PAL can add 4 suites upfront for select planes, and deploy it on their most premium routes like JFK or LHR. also, i've read a business case why some airlines still dont ditch their F class altogether because they offer discounted tickets (but still making profit) to the executives of their investors and suppliers in the airline, so in other words this is to please them so that they can get additional investments and/or discounts in the future with their investors and suppliers respectively. so it is considered an indirect investment. but it seems PAL doesnt have plans AFAIK, I've talked to a senior purser and the manager of PRD last year and they confirmed they don't have plans to reintroduce F class.
DeleteIf PAL will re-introduced F class they can use this seat:
Deletehttps://www.aircraftinteriorsexpo.com/en/Exhibitors/3230121/Thompson-Aero-Seating/Products/1201066/Thompson-Vantage-First
i still go with B777-9x. they will just be perfect timing when B777ER are about to retire..
ReplyDelete777-9 is too big for PAL, and the 777x program is slowly moving to uncertainty due to financial difficulties of the ME3 carriers (whose orders are comprise of more than half of all 777x orders).
ReplyDeleteA35K is the perfect fit for PAL’s fleet. It can work side by side with the 77W. It can replace 77W long haul routes and redeploy 77W in the middle east if they have no plans to refurbished them. Then concentrate the A333 fleet in the high capacity domestic, intra-asia, and pacific routes. Which can help Manila Airport decongest a little.
They could also consider replacing the A330s with 787s instead, since 787s have longer range and can open up niche long-haul routes (like Russia and the like). The 777s and A350-1000 could complement each other: 777s could be used for regional trunk routes, and A350s for the long-haul routes.
DeleteAnd actually, to my knowledge it's only Etihad which is on shaky ground: Emirates is still doing well, while Qatar is still somehow doing fine despite all the obstacles it's facing right now.
Don’t forget Lufthansa might also trim down order of their 777X.
DeleteThe new triple seven remains an incapable trans-pacific plane as long as PAL retains the same number of seats as the old one.
DeleteThe 779 is too big for PAL?! Weren't they able to fill up the 744 to LAX and SFO?
ReplyDeleteDifferent times: less competition back then, also there weren't any true competitors to the 744 back then (A340 was not to par, 777 was in its infancy and only had the -200 version at the time, A380 was still in development). Still, PAL manages to fill up their 777s to America so the demand is clearly there.
DeletePAL retired the 744's in '14 which means that the 77W was already in full swing with many carriers.
DeleteMy question is, right before they retired the 744, were they able to constantly fill up the 744 up to its retirement? If not, then the 779 will be indeed to big.
Yes they did. It was always full in more ways than one. That is actually the reason why the A340 came along to funnel the excess.
DeleteSo is there a possibility of the 779 for PAL?
DeleteA35K and B779 are good contenders for replacement of PAL B77W
DeletePossibility, yes. But they have to be convinced first on the hard data on the 779 which at this moment is none, while 35K is already in front of them and they were proven way better than design expectations.
DeleteSince PAL has option for 6 A359 they can converted them to A35K which can be used to boost capacity to there East Coast routes or deployed them to the West Coast to complement or replace the 6 older B77W. But IMHO I think PAL should just retain the 6 A359 when converting them to firm orders and simply placed a seperate order for A35K with option to aquired additional aircraft if needed to replace the B77W
DeleteThe 77W and A350-1000 can work hand in hand in US West Coast. But, for me, PAL should consider big planes ofr these routes as these are the most in demand route and most profitable.
ReplyDelete