Philippine747 wrote:

I'm curious to the source of the list? I've been seeing in another thread that they were interested in retaining the -878X A330s with the new interior and lower capacity.

The actual legal filings that were submitted to the court.

LAXintl wrote:

Philippine747 wrote:

I'm curious to the source of the list? I've been seeing in another thread that they were interested in retaining the -878X A330s with the new interior and lower capacity.

The actual legal filings that were submitted to the court.

Thanks, I think I found them already!

As far as BK timing, from a source that serves as an advisor to one of the firms involved, I understand they are hoping for a 180-day case timeline assuming they hit no turbulence along the way.

oldJoe wrote:

Polot wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

It definitely seems the idea here is to shrink and dump costly or not as favorable deals, certainly not simplifying the fleet. After all why keep a pair of orphan A350s for example?

Would mutually agreed upon lease rejections be included in court filings?

The fact that A350 - RP-C3506 is on that list seems to suggest so, since that plane is already reported to be heading to LH which would suggest that PAL and the owner came to an agreement and court does not have to force lease to end.

The four A350s on that list are all going to LH
https://sites.google.com/view/europeanairlinefleets/dlh/lhdlh

Apprently only 3 will go to LH while 3 will remain with PAL also 3504 was recently returned from storage. Additionally PAL will be returning 5 Boeing 777 instead of 4 with Long-hul fleet likely to be just 8 aircraft.

The company now filed a bankruptcy petition in the Philippines asking the local court to recognize its U.S. proceedings.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... er-ph-laws

Majority owner Lucio Tan, plan a fresh capital injection into the airline increasing authorized capital to 30 billion pesos ($586 million) from 13.5 billion pesos.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanbu ... 57ba31f7df

Per court docket, PAL received court approval to access its debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing totaling US$505 million.

DIP financing comprises a $250 million first-lien secured Tranche A multi-draw term loan, and a second lien secured Tranche B multi-draw term loan facility of $255 million.

LAXintl wrote:

Per court docket, PAL received court approval to access its debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing totaling US$505 million.

This was also reported in detail on Flightglobal but they seem to have pulled the article from their online portal early this morning.

PAL filed its plan or reorganization disclosure statement and solicitation of votes for the plan

http://www.kccllc.net/pal/document/2111 ... 0000000001

Devilfish wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Per court docket, PAL received court approval to access its debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing totaling US$505 million.

This was also reported in detail on Flightglobal but they seem to have pulled the article from their online portal early this morning.

$505 million in DIP financing is confirmed in the Plan of Reorg in LAXintl's link, page 20 of that document/page 30 of the PDF. Enjoy a little light reading!

To attract foreign direct investment, the Philippine Senate approved a bill that will allow full foreign ownership of public services, which includes airlines beyond the current 40% limit.

Wonder if it will bring in new money, or interest in taking a stake in a restructured PAL?

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ph ... ar-AARPBRt

U.S. BK court on Friday approved the airline's proposed reorganization plan. The plan was unanimously approved by creditors.

The company expects to emerge from the Chapter 11 process before the end of 2021 and after completing a few more procedural steps.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -debt-load

And to ring in the new year, PAL exits the restructuring process again.

https://palrecovery.com/wp-content/uplo ... _Final.pdf

Hopefully this time they can keep the slimmed-down carrier focus on profitability and avoid costly dreams of grandeur.

The crazy part of that linked exit announcement, they speak about ideas of grandeur, restoring and growing the global network etc.

In my opinion, they should remain small and nimble and focus on battling the strong LCC sector all around them in ASEAN market which will keep them busy versus chasing global ambitions.

Not sure the new business plan is anything different than the ones since 1990s that have drained huge sums of money.

LAXintl wrote:

And to ring in the new year, PAL exits the restructuring process again.

https://palrecovery.com/wp-content/uplo ... _Final.pdf

Hopefully this time they can keep the slimmed-down carrier focus on profitability and avoid costly dreams of grandeur.

mercure1 wrote:

The crazy part of that linked exit announcement, they speak about ideas of grandeur, restoring and growing the global network etc.

In my opinion, they should remain small and nimble and focus on battling the strong LCC sector all around them in ASEAN market which will keep them busy versus chasing global ambitions.

Not sure the new business plan is anything different than the ones since 1990s that have drained huge sums of money.

I'm quite perplexed here: a lot of what's said in the release points to ideas PR had already discussed, either pre-COVID or during the pandemic (e.g. resuming TLV service). Even before COVID PR didn't have the "dreams of grandeur" that have befuddled the region's state-run carriers like TG, MH or GA. So how is this conclusion being reached?

PR tried the "small and nimble" approach in the middle of the last decade, when it downgraded its hard product to better compete with 5J. They still lost market share to the LCCs as a result, while its reputation took a battering for it. How does outcompeting the LCCs help them this time if it didn't help them the last time?

I get that the Philippine market is price-sensitive but the country isn't necessarily poor. There are people who are willing to pay the premium to fly PR even if I personally am not part of that demographic, and the hope is that as the country grows richer that segment of the traveling public grows. I'd think there's some demand for premium service, no?

PR's whole A330 fleet during their 'small and nimble' downsizing experiment with the high capacity two-class A330s (with no IFE fitted) from what I recall didn't end well for PR either.

The old A330 config would've worked on charters, PR could've also experimented with a mono-class A330 like 5J's config, but the old PR A330 config would've not been acceptable on Japan or Australian flights where there is some 'J' demand.

SCFlyer wrote:

PR's whole A330 fleet during their 'small and nimble' downsizing experiment with the high capacity two-class A330s (with no IFE fitted) from what I recall didn't end well for PR either.

The old A330 config would've worked on charters, PR could've also experimented with a mono-class A330 like 5J's config, but the old PR A330 config would've not been acceptable on Japan or Australian flights where there is some 'J' demand.

In the downsizing, wouldn't it have been better to dump the A330 and keep the A350? The A350 even has 9 seats across per row in economy.

edealinfo wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

PR's whole A330 fleet during their 'small and nimble' downsizing experiment with the high capacity two-class A330s (with no IFE fitted) from what I recall didn't end well for PR either.

The old A330 config would've worked on charters, PR could've also experimented with a mono-class A330 like 5J's config, but the old PR A330 config would've not been acceptable on Japan or Australian flights where there is some 'J' demand.

In the downsizing, wouldn't it have been better to dump the A330 and keep the A350? The A350 even has 9 seats across per row in economy.

The A350 is also a lot more expensive than the A330, and those long haul flights are likely losing more money (or making less) than regional flights than can be covered by A330s.

Here is the problem I see.

A market like Philippines (same can be said for several other ASEAN markets) is driven by LCC carriers. The market pricing, and competition is set by them.

The only way to survive long term is to be able to have a low enough cost base to go toe to toe with the LCCs, or be lucky enough to benefit of significant premium demand to offset a higher legacy cost base, and help minimize the LCC bleed.

Problem is PAL (as GA, MH and TG) lives in a low yield market place, while having a higher cost base of a with mixed fleet, product and staff.

Repeating the same game plan of running a global airline with routes to far flung destinations(mostly chasing VFR Filipino diaspora in the case of PAL), is hardly going to produce a better outcome no matter of many times these airlines try. We see the same disastrous outcomes playing out over and over at the other legacy carriers in the regions who insist on hanging onto the past.

And I say this having business dealing with PAL since 1992 and sadly see the same mistakes made over and over by each new group of owners/managers who hold champagne taste on a beer budget.

ANA Holdings had stake in PAL, so they will join the capital increase?

LAXintl wrote:

Here is the problem I see.

A market like Philippines (same can be said for several other ASEAN markets) is driven by LCC carriers. The market pricing, and competition is set by them.

The only way to survive long term is to be able to have a low enough cost base to go toe to toe with the LCCs, or be lucky enough to benefit of significant premium demand to offset a higher legacy cost base, and help minimize the LCC bleed.

Problem is PAL (as GA, MH and TG) lives in a low yield market place, while having a higher cost base of a with mixed fleet, product and staff.

Repeating the same game plan of running a global airline with routes to far flung destinations(mostly chasing VFR Filipino diaspora in the case of PAL), is hardly going to produce a better outcome no matter of many times these airlines try. We see the same disastrous outcomes playing out over and over at the other legacy carriers in the regions who insist on hanging onto the past.

And I say this having business dealing with PAL since 1992 and sadly see the same mistakes made over and over by each new group of owners/managers who hold champagne taste on a beer budget.

I would add isn't MNL a congested a poorly laid out for hub operations?

I would also think PR needs to redefine their purpose and rebrand if they want to be successful - as an Aussie I can only talk to the the Australian market they are seen as a rather poor option, frontline staff are great and loved, however onboard product is mixed and process and reliability poor.

How about resetting PR as a small boutique full service operation key trunk domestic routes, and key international business markets- not claiming to be 5 star, just focusing on high value quality service with the Filipino touch, and look to refresh the brand keep it simple? I'm thinking a Jetblue of the Philippines with one widebody and one narrow body fleet - not every carrier needs to be SQ. Perhaps they could also look to set up their own LCC? For some domestic routes and for outbound Filipino travel to the Gulf and other places - again made up of one or two fleet types. And like QF/JQ link the loyalty proposition?

I also have to say I can't imagine the PAL branding is well understood outside of the Philippines, keep Philippine Airlines, but not 'PAL' - we've moved away from that legacy branding. Keep the fleets and product simple and consistent, and have a separate freight business working across mainline and LCC.

mercure1 wrote:

The crazy part of that linked exit announcement, they speak about ideas of grandeur, restoring and growing the global network etc.

It is not so much growing the global network -- rather it's about rationalizing their current routes...and given how quickly they managed to exit Chapter 11 compared to others, there must be enough substance in their plan which would allow it to succeed.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/p ... 91.article

Polot wrote:

The A350 is also a lot more expensive than the A330, and those long haul flights are likely losing more money (or making less) than regional flights than can be covered by A330s.

This is where the much less expensive A338 would make a lot of sense. PR could break those ultra long haul routes into two segments by stopping at HNL for YYZ or JFK...and perhaps at TLV or IST for Europe. When PR's A330 leases expire, Airbus may probably offer a much keener pricing so PR wouldn't look towards the 787-10. The A359 can remain as their workhorse for LAX, SFO and YVR until such time that traffic demand justifies the A35K.

LAXintl wrote:

The only way to survive long term is to be able to have a low enough cost base to go toe to toe with the LCCs, or be lucky enough to benefit of significant premium demand to offset a higher legacy cost base, and help minimize the LCC bleed.

PR's cost base is already low and the local LCCs do not fly to where PR does. On the routes that they do, 2P is there to compete.

LAXintl wrote:

Repeating the same game plan of running a global airline with routes to far flung destinations(mostly chasing VFR Filipino diaspora in the case of PAL), is hardly going to produce a better outcome no matter of many times these airlines try.

That diaspora is PR's bread and butter...they do not have any other. Abandoning them for other carriers to profit is to do them a disservice. That PR is still around after 85 years speaks much. They will just have to transform themselves into a lean and mean organization.

smi0006 wrote:

How about resetting PR as a small boutique full service operation key trunk domestic routes, and key international business markets- not claiming to be 5 star, just focusing on high value quality service with the Filipino touch, and look to refresh the brand keep it simple?

Now, that is one sure way of burning money quickly. PR can't even find enough passengers to fill their business cabins, leave alone running a "boutique" service!

Devilfish wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

The crazy part of that linked exit announcement, they speak about ideas of grandeur, restoring and growing the global network etc.

It is not so much growing the global network -- rather it's about rationalizing their current routes...and given how quickly they managed to exit Chapter 11 compared to others, there must be enough substance in their plan which would allow it to succeed.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/p ... 91.article

Polot wrote:

The A350 is also a lot more expensive than the A330, and those long haul flights are likely losing more money (or making less) than regional flights than can be covered by A330s.

This is where the much less expensive A338 would make a lot of sense. PR could break those ultra long haul routes into two segments by stopping at HNL for YYZ or JFK...and perhaps at TLV or IST for Europe. When PR's A330 leases expire, Airbus may probably offer a much keener pricing so PR wouldn't look towards the 787-10. The A359 can remain as their workhorse for LAX, SFO and YVR until such time that traffic demand justifies the A35K.

LAXintl wrote:

The only way to survive long term is to be able to have a low enough cost base to go toe to toe with the LCCs, or be lucky enough to benefit of significant premium demand to offset a higher legacy cost base, and help minimize the LCC bleed.

PR's cost base is already low and the local LCCs do not fly to where PR does. On the routes that they do, 2P is there to compete.

LAXintl wrote:

Repeating the same game plan of running a global airline with routes to far flung destinations(mostly chasing VFR Filipino diaspora in the case of PAL), is hardly going to produce a better outcome no matter of many times these airlines try.

That diaspora is PR's bread and butter...they do not have any other. Abandoning them for other carriers to profit is to do them a disservice. That PR is still around after 85 years speaks much. They will just have to transform themselves into a lean and mean organization.

smi0006 wrote:

How about resetting PR as a small boutique full service operation key trunk domestic routes, and key international business markets- not claiming to be 5 star, just focusing on high value quality service with the Filipino touch, and look to refresh the brand keep it simple?

Now, that is one sure way of burning money quickly. PR can't even find enough passengers to fill their business cabins, leave alone running a "boutique" service!

Boutique as in niche, not grandiose - not full scale 5-star bells and whistles again think JetBlue vs QR, quality that appeals to what the market needs and wants.

So what is their long haul fleet plan? Seems they kept all 10 77Ws and just 3 359s. Why not simply pickup another pair of 777s on the cheap? Odd.

Devilfish wrote:

This is where the much less expensive A338 would make a lot of sense. PR could break those ultra long haul routes into two segments by stopping at HNL for YYZ or JFK...and perhaps at TLV or IST for Europe. When PR's A330 leases expire, Airbus may probably offer a much keener pricing so PR wouldn't look towards the 787-10. The A359 can remain as their workhorse for LAX, SFO and YVR until such time that traffic demand justifies the A35K.

PAL does not need to fly far flung routes around the globe. Frankly it should focus on sustainable Far East markets, and possibly and only if it can be proven to be long term profitable some US West Coast service.

Devilfish wrote:

That diaspora is PR's bread and butter...they do not have any other. Abandoning them for other carriers to profit is to do them a disservice. That PR is still around after 85 years speaks much. They will just have to transform themselves into a lean and mean organization.

Maybe time to come up with a new game plan. Serving that low margin diaspora has obviously not been very profitable. PAL is not exactly an airline that manages to draw in foreigner client to much of an extent. Maybe that needs to change.

And for those 85 years, some 50 were as a national airline. The airline has a terrible financial record since since its 1990s privatization.

LAXintl wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

This is where the much less expensive A338 would make a lot of sense. PR could break those ultra long haul routes into two segments by stopping at HNL for YYZ or JFK...and perhaps at TLV or IST for Europe. When PR's A330 leases expire, Airbus may probably offer a much keener pricing so PR wouldn't look towards the 787-10. The A359 can remain as their workhorse for LAX, SFO and YVR until such time that traffic demand justifies the A35K.

PAL does not need to fly far flung routes around the globe. Frankly it should focus on sustainable Far East markets, and possibly and only if it can be proven to be long term profitable some US West Coast service.
.

They ain't giving up new York and still fly with the A350.