General Info

[QUOTE=Ekspat;1591377]Must be new? I've been from Manila to LAX return in 2012 without a stop in Guam. 13 hours non-stop flight in 747.[/QUOTE]I've done the LAX to Manila flight on PAL a few times.

If it's the same from a few years ago, the LAX to Manila leg generally has a stopover in Guam for refueling, but if the flight is empty, it will skip it and go direct to Manila, since the flight will use less fuel rendering the refueling unnecessary. The Manila to LAX leg is non-stop.

[QUOTE=Poolmover;1591333]Should I take the shorter and direct Philippine airlines at about $300 US more but 4 hours less or take the one stop approach? If the latter, any recommendations?[/QUOTE]

Assuming you are looking at the China Airline option. I've also done that flight couple of times. You're spending approximately 8 hours total extra (2+6) to save $300. For comfort level, both economy seats were similar - they both suck. Too bad I don't fly business or first class. I usually consider how much per hour you save. If it is more than what I make per hour at my job, then I go cheap.

[QUOTE=WestCoast1;1591445]The last time I flew it was 2011 (never again -- I flew it to save time and about $100). The Guam layover is only on the westbound leg in the 747. It makes no sense to me, as the longbow 747 is capable of flying farther than Manila without refueling
SNIP[/QUOTE]Two other possible reasons for stopping at Guam: Disembarking of military / civilian support personnel and loading / unloading air freight.

[QUOTE=GreenBud;1591453] You're spending approximately 8 hours total extra (2+6) to save $300. For comfort level, both economy seats were similar - they both suck. Too bad I don't fly business or first class. I usually consider how much per hour you save. If it is more than what I make per hour at my job, then I go cheap.[/QUOTE]I calculate differently: $300.00 is currently about 13,000 php, which in turn roughly equals 5-7 LT bar fines in AC (twice as many ST's) or the same number of FL's from LAC. IMHO I'd sit an extra few hours and invest the savings into pussy.

[QUOTE=PipJaeger;1591471]Two other possible reasons for stopping at Guam: Disembarking of military / civilian support personnel and loading / unloading air freight.[/QUOTE]Took the flight several times (to save time). It never approached the terminal in Guam. It sits by itself, the av / gas trucks roll out to refuel. The pilot makes strict instruction before landing about not getting out of your seat, its important the plane be still during refueling, etc. Nobody moves. The refueling takes about 10 minutes, then the plane sits quietly for a while. You don't hear cargo doors moving. What I found interesting is that the:50 minute layover was exact, from wheels touching down to rotation, each time was at 50 minutes, like it was all planned ahead of time (I'm guessing that it is). It would be very easy to have taken off 10 minutes earlier each time, but we did not, we just sat on the tarmac, waiting. Its been several years since I took this flight, and PAL has newer aircraft in its fleet (A-330/340/ etc). Anyone taken the flight more recently?

[QUOTE=WestCoast1;1591445]T,..Pool, I'll PM you.[/QUOTE]As I posted the tech stop is to refuel in view of cargo weight issues. Nothing to do with anything or military cargo, as on return leg they are regularly loaded to Max and uplift less fuel.

The 50 minutes wait is for brakes to cool, without which they won't take off.

Standard procedure for any airline.

I never heard LT skimping on safety. 'just my 2 cents.

Thank you all. Good insight.

[QUOTE=WestCoast1;1591767]Took the flight several times (to save time). It never approached the terminal in Guam. It sits by itself, the av / gas trucks roll out to refuel. The pilot makes strict instruction before landing about not getting out of your seat, its important the plane be still during refueling, etc. Nobody moves. The refueling takes about 10 minutes, then the plane sits quietly for a while. You don't hear cargo doors moving. What I found interesting is that the:50 minute layover was exact, from wheels touching down to rotation, each time was at 50 minutes, like it was all planned ahead of time (I'm guessing that it is). It would be very easy to have taken off 10 minutes earlier each time, but we did not, we just sat on the tarmac, waiting. Its been several years since I took this flight, and PAL has newer aircraft in its fleet (A-330/340/ etc). Anyone taken the flight more recently?[/QUOTE]Good news about PAL if you are travelling from the west coast. They are finally getting rid of the old 747's and have upgraded to 777's if you are travelling from either LAX or SFO. The reason this is important is the 777 is much more energy efficient and does not require refueling when travelling to MNL. It really is a direct flight now.

I have always flown Philippine Air which is a direct flight from Vancouver to Manila. I believe the flight connects from Las Vegas. It used to be that the 777 only flew Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, however my travel agent says all Vancouver to Manila flights are now 777.

The flight departs Vancouver at about midnight and arrives in Manila at about 05:30 which is great as there are no other flights arriving at that time so immigration clearance is quick and I can grab a to my hotel cab before rush hour.

[QUOTE=ScreamingBeaver;1592072]Good news about PAL if you are travelling from the west coast. They are finally getting rid of the old 747's and have upgraded to 777's if you are travelling from either LAX or SFO. The reason this is important is the 777 is much more energy efficient and does not require refueling when travelling to MNL. It really is a direct flight now.[/QUOTE]777 is efficient but 2 engine vs 4 engines of the 747 or a 340's.

One down and its going to be interesting for such long over water flights.

Scare monger at work (me).

[QUOTE=EconoTech;1591852]As I posted the tech stop is to refuel in view of cargo weight issues. Nothing to do with anything or military cargo, as on return leg they are regularly loaded to Max and uplift less fuel.

The 50 minutes wait is for brakes to cool, without which they won't take off.

Standard procedure for any airline.

I never heard LT skimping on safety. 'just my 2 cents.[/QUOTE]To Econo Tech.

It depend to many thing like strong headwind and weather most airline don't like to fill the plane full, I know Cathay Pacific only fill their plane only 65% lighter plane get better mileage from SFO to HK if they get strong headwind they stop for refueling in Tapei or Icheon airport.

Fast eddie 48.

[QUOTE=FastEddie48;1592443]To Econo Tech.

It depend to many thing like strong headwind and weather most airline don't like to fill the plane full, I know Cathay Pacific only fill their plane only 65% lighter plane get better mileage from SFO to HK if they get strong headwind they stop for refueling in Tapei or Icheon airport.

Fast eddie 48.[/QUOTE]In the case of Philippine Airlines, I am told it was due to weight restriction in uplifting Max fuel, which they trade off by the tech stop only on the homeward leg. And avoid unloading pax.

Either you fly with reduced pax / cargo and fly non stopo, or fill the plane and do a tech stop, as planes used to do, stopping in Anchorage with older planes, and even now the likes of Fedex / DHL do, on cargo flights do, to / from US, and as the B747 flying components for 787 does, even now, with multiple tech stops.

After all Cargo doesn't complain if there is a fuel stop.

The Max fuel at Max weight limitatiob is what made SQ reduce the seats in their world's longest non-stop flights, SIN / LAX, SIN / EWR.

Anyway it's a different subject altogether.

[QUOTE=FastEddie48;1592443]To Econo Tech.

It depend to many thing like strong headwind and weather most airline don't like to fill the plane full, I know Cathay Pacific only fill their plane only 65% lighter plane get better mileage from SFO to HK if they get strong headwind they stop for refueling in Tapei or Icheon airport.

Fast eddie 48.[/QUOTE]In the case of Philippine Airlines, I am told it was due to weight restriction in uplifting Max fuel, which they trade off by the tech stop only on the homeward leg. And avoid unloading pax.

Either you fly with reduced pax / cargo and fly non stopo, or fill the plane and do a tech stop, as planes used to do, stopping in Anchorage with older planes, and even now the likes of Fedex / DHL do, on cargo flights do, to / from US, and as the B747 flying components for 787 does, even now, with multiple tech stops.

After all Cargo doesn't complain if there is a fuel stop.

The Max fuel at Max weight limitatiob is what made SQ reduce the seats in their world's longest non-stop flights, SIN / LAX, SIN / EWR.

Anyway it's a different subject altogether.

[QUOTE=RedKilt;1593607]Just make sure you get a supervised blood test and ask your doctor for the specific dose.

Self medicating with testosterone can seriously f*k up your prostate system.

It's not like taking a V or C pill every so often.

Remember that most guys over 60 have got some form of prostate problem, even if it is in very early stages, and rarely does it actually kill them. Loading up on T is a quick way to tip the system out of balance.[/QUOTE]Also you could have the same problem athletes have after long term use. Your body quits making the stuff. So if you quit use, your dick may be in the dirt for good. There's something you're supposed to inject along with it to keep that from happening. And allot of the excess T converts into estrogen. And excess estrogen has the same effect as low testosterone, low libido. So guys on T need to use an estrogen inhibitor too. You're messing with some serious shit if you start that.

There's a couple other things besides maca you could get at a health food store or online that would give you more sap.

[URL]https://www.swansonvitamins.com/now-foods-maca-pure-powder-certified-organic-7-oz-pwdr[/URL]

http://www.affordablesolaray.com/5150.html

[URL]http://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-premium-raw-multi-glandular-men-60-caps[/URL]

[URL]http://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-premium-raw-orchic-glandular-1-gram-30-tabs[/URL]

But a word of caution also on the latter. You may see a strange look on her face if she gets a mixed load of you and cattle gland in her mouth

Hello brother mongers,

I did a motorcycle tour of Mindanao this year. Was real fantastic as there are no tourist there. The girls are starved for white meat. Anyway this year (November) I'm going to Samar in the Philippines. Anybody got some scoop on that place.

Thanks,

LM

I was reading up in the CIA Factbook for some info on East Timor. I came across entries which I had not seen before. These had to do with HIV / AIDS.

There are three numbers given: - infection rate. That is, number of persons infected per 100,000 of population: Numbers of persons living with AIDS, and death rate.

Despite many punters fears of contracting AIDS in the Phils, the actual infection rate in the USA is six times the infection rate in the Phils. That is, you are six times more likely to contract AIDS from unprotected sex in the US than in the Phils.

The number of people living with AIDS in the US is 1.2 million, and in the Phils it is 14,800.

The death rate per year in the US is 17,000, and in the Phils is 300.

So forget your worries about the Phils, and be six times more afraid in the USA.

And for those who are married, and feel safe, be aware that about 50% of married women in western societies have sex outside marriage. So you are not safe there, either.

I guess some of you may be interested.

One might ask. Given that the USA is broke, and owes 14 trillion dollars, why is it borrowing more money to give to the Philippines for AIDS prevention action when the money could be far more effectively used for AIDS prevention at home.

G

[QUOTE=Gangles;1594057]



One might ask. Given that the USA is broke, and owes 14 trillion dollars, why is it borrowing more money to give to the Philippines for AIDS prevention action when the money could be far more effectively used for AIDS prevention at home.

G[/QUOTE]In a word " influence".