Per many sources (Cirium and Flight Global among them) PAL Philippine Airlines has informed its lessors of a plan to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the USA by the end of May, Norton Rose Fulbright (US) is the airline’s counsel on the restructuring and Seabury Capital (US) has been hired as a restructuring adviser.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/p ... 81.article

They have been threatening BK for several months now. That along with latest news already being covered in >>> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456059

LAXintl wrote:

They have been threatening BK for several months now. That along with latest news already being covered in >>> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456059

It's being covered in the Philadelphia thread? Either way, I think this is fine as its own topic, I never would have known about it reading a generic mega thread.

LAXintl wrote:

They have been threatening BK for several months now. That along with latest news already being covered in >>> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456059

I thought this is important enough to warrant its own thread. It gets lost in those generic threads that most users may not open.

Does this mean they will file for bankruptcy in the Philippines though? Haven’t a few non-US airlines done this in the US with no operational impact?

smi0006 wrote:

Does this mean they will file for bankruptcy in the Philippines though? Haven’t a few non-US airlines done this in the US with no operational impact?

It appears the filing will be done in US courts, just as Avianca and LATAM did.

smi0006 wrote:

Does this mean they will file for bankruptcy in the Philippines though? Haven’t a few non-US airlines done this in the US with no operational impact?

The US, particularly the Southern District of New York is a preferred destination for bankruptcy and restructuring for companies with global exposure as the courts and law firms are well setup to handle large bankruptcy cases. During the bankruptcy contracts and items like aircraft leases, employees, suppliers can be renegotiated and terminated in ways that are more favorable for the company. So while the PR will continue to operate on a day to day basis they could easily reject aircraft leases that are too expensive and divest of assets that are financially burdening.

catiii wrote:

dcajet wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

They have been threatening BK for several months now. That along with latest news already being covered in >>> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456059

I thought this is important enough to warrant its own thread. It gets lost in those generic threads that most users may not open.

I doubt it's being covered in the Philadelphia thread...

You're right to start a new thread.

I believe he was referring to the Philippine Aviation Thread 2021. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455999&start=100

There are several posts regarding details of how PR is going about the pre-packaging of the bankruptcy, etc.

RTWin10 wrote:

catiii wrote:

dcajet wrote:

I thought this is important enough to warrant its own thread. It gets lost in those generic threads that most users may not open.

I doubt it's being covered in the Philadelphia thread...

You're right to start a new thread.

I believe he was referring to the Philippine Aviation Thread 2021. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455999&start=100

There are several posts regarding details of how PR is going about the pre-packaging of the bankruptcy, etc.

The thread he quoted in the post is a Philadelphia thread.

Any idea how this bankruptcy would affect passengers holding credits for future flights?

I messed up and took a credit voucher for future travel instead of a credit card refund when Covid hit. And I have been looking for a way out ever since. PAL initially said a refund to credit card could take upwards of 5 cycles to to process, meaning it could be 5 months before I got a credit back to my card. Come to find out that was a load of crap they were using to scare people into taking the voucher. I should have said refund to card and then disputed the charge with Visa and Bank of America when the credit wasn't issued within a reasonable time frame. But I digress....

Adam

With how much PR is struggling these days, this should put to rest any discussion or hope of PR ordering any new types for the foreseeable future, whether it be the 787 or the A330neo.

and joining PAL into Oneworld Alliance.

roadrunner165 wrote:

Any idea how this bankruptcy would affect passengers holding credits for future flights?

I'm not a lawyer but I believe a Ch 11 filing would allow PAL to reject these obligations. That generates a lot of ill-will among many so they may not choose to reject.

MIflyer12 wrote:

roadrunner165 wrote:

Any idea how this bankruptcy would affect passengers holding credits for future flights?

I'm not a lawyer but I believe a Ch 11 filing would allow PAL to reject these obligations. That generates a lot of ill-will among many so they may not choose to reject.

The reason most companies don’t usually reject future applications like that is because it is low hanging fruit (in the grand scheme of things) and it alienates customers.

PR isnt restructuring to wipe out your $1500 credit.

I think they were struggling even before Covid-19. Hopefully they'll bounce back.

jfklganyc wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

roadrunner165 wrote:

Any idea how this bankruptcy would affect passengers holding credits for future flights?

I'm not a lawyer but I believe a Ch 11 filing would allow PAL to reject these obligations. That generates a lot of ill-will among many so they may not choose to reject.

The reason most companies don’t usually reject future applications like that is because it is low hanging fruit (in the grand scheme of things) and it alienates customers.

PR isnt restructuring to wipe out your $1500 credit.

It also only hurts them when the passenger actually uses the credit...and a surprising number of people never do and let them expire.

Rejecting them also doesn’t really free up cash for the airline in the short term. Credits just impact future revenue (minimally).

Not surprising. They have always seemed to me to be on shaky financial ground, and COVID has been very hard on all airlines. And the Philippines seem to have been extremely harsh (unnecessarily so) with their lockdown rules. I have flown PAL when I have been in the Philippines only because the alternatives seem worse. My wife is from Dipolog, which is about 500 miles south of Manila. So the choice to get there is PAL, Cebu Pacific, or a two day boat ride. I have heard and read enough horror stories about Cebu Pacific to avoid them if possible. And my wife is dead set against the two day boat ride (which also costs just as much). An interesting aside; when we first met in 2013 flights from Manila to Dipolog were sparsely populated; getting a seat at short notice was no problem. That has dramatically changed; they have been booked solid for two to three weeks in advance every time we have tried to book a seat, either for ourselves or for family.

And its official.

Philippine Airlines said on Friday that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States which will allow the airline to restructure and reorganize its finances impacted by COVID-19 crisis.

The proposed restructure plan which was filed in the Southern District of New York and needs court approval will allow the airline to consensually reduce its fleet capacity by 25 percent and aims to cut $2 billion in borrowings, the company said.

Philippine Airlines files for Chapter 11 in U.S. after COVID-19 crisis
https://www.reuters.com/article/philipp ... SL1N2Q600A

https://palrecovery.com/
- All passenger and cargo flights will continue to operate – it is business as usual for PAL.
- All current and future tickets and travel vouchers will be honored, subject to the usual terms and conditions of use.
- Mabuhay Miles will continue to be earned and honored subject to the usual terms and conditions of use.

So what are the 25% fleet cuts, and permanent route closures?

Seems PAL has had endless drama since the 1990s with privatization, bankruptcies, multiple sales, etc.

UPlog wrote:

So what are the 25% fleet cuts, and permanent route closures?

Seems PAL has had endless drama since the 1990s with privatization, bankruptcies, multiple sales, etc.

4x A350 will go to LH. Leaves 2 more.

Out of curiosity, is PAL majority owned within the US , hence filing in NY court .

I recall reading prior they would be shrinking the 777 fleet as well and could restructure the narrowbody fleet and pending Airbus orders also.

PAL seems to be in that club of airlines having ongoing chronic financial issues over the last few decades.

Fatbus wrote:

Out of curiosity, is PAL majority owned within the US , hence filing in NY court .

No, foreign companies can file in the US and use US restructuring. Avianca and LATAM recently, I think some others.

Thanks for that !

roadrunner165 wrote:

I messed up and took a credit voucher for future travel instead of a credit card refund when Covid hit.
Adam

"Messed up" is an understatement. Whoever takes a travel credit voucher over a full cash refund regardless of how long it would take to process. This is a lesson for life.

Having said that, there is a reasonable chnace you would sill be able to use the voucher.

Is you are a fully-VACCINATED dual citizen (both US and Philippine passport holder) do you still have to quaranatine in the Philippines if you want to visit there?

edealinfo wrote:

Is you are a fully-VACCINATED dual citizen (both US and Philippine passport holder) do you still have to quaranatine in the Philippines if you want to visit there?

Yes, the quarantine rules currently apply even to people who are fully vaccinated. I'm flying back in December (luckily not on PR; I'm flying KE and DL) and the rules as they currently stand require 14 days of quarantine: ten days at a hotel unless you're coming from a green list country, where the quarantine period is shortened to seven days, followed by the remaining time at home. Of course, the U.S. isn't on the green list except for American Samoa.

Philippine Airlines to return 22 planes, reassures on survival

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... Ss3fc7SNBw

> Flag carrier filed for Chapter 11 in the United States
> Philippine Airlines returning 22 of its 92 aircraft-executives
> Negotiates with Airbus to postpone delivery of 13 jets
> Airline's president reassures on survival of company
> PAL, owned by Tan with Japan’s ANA Holdings as minority shareholder, said another $505 million infusion via equity and debt will come from its majority stockholder.
> Lastly, the airline is securing $150 million in additional debt financing from “global private investors” for post-restructuring activities.

Being returned are several A321ceos, four A350s and up to four B77Ws. Some which have already flown out of the country for good.

asuflyer wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Does this mean they will file for bankruptcy in the Philippines though? Haven’t a few non-US airlines done this in the US with no operational impact?

The US, particularly the Southern District of New York is a preferred destination for bankruptcy and restructuring for companies with global exposure as the courts and law firms are well setup to handle large bankruptcy cases. During the bankruptcy contracts and items like aircraft leases, employees, suppliers can be renegotiated and terminated in ways that are more favorable for the company. So while the PR will continue to operate on a day to day basis they could easily reject aircraft leases that are too expensive and divest of assets that are financially burdening.

That all makes sense, but isn’t clear to me is what jurisdiction the Southern District of NY’s courts would have on companies and contracts not within the United States.

For example: how does this ‘protection’ prevent a Philippine creditor with a contract with the Philippine company from suing or even starting liquidation proceedings in the Philippines?

Wouldn’t PAL have to explicitly state in their contracts with suppliers, however long before the current process occurred, that the contract is subject to New York law?

vhtje wrote:

asuflyer wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Does this mean they will file for bankruptcy in the Philippines though? Haven’t a few non-US airlines done this in the US with no operational impact?

The US, particularly the Southern District of New York is a preferred destination for bankruptcy and restructuring for companies with global exposure as the courts and law firms are well setup to handle large bankruptcy cases. During the bankruptcy contracts and items like aircraft leases, employees, suppliers can be renegotiated and terminated in ways that are more favorable for the company. So while the PR will continue to operate on a day to day basis they could easily reject aircraft leases that are too expensive and divest of assets that are financially burdening.

That all makes sense, but isn’t clear to me is what jurisdiction the Southern District of NY’s courts would have on companies and contracts not within the United States.

For example: how does this ‘protection’ prevent a Philippine creditor with a contract with the Philippine company from suing or even starting liquidation proceedings in the Philippines?

Wouldn’t PAL have to explicitly state in their contracts with suppliers, however long before the current process occurred, that the contract is subject to New York law?

It is quite common for companies to file bankruptcy in the USA or (not in link, my opinion) the UK:
http://internationalbusinesslawadvisor. ... bligations.

The threshold requirements for foreign companies seeking Chapter 11 protection is surprisingly easy. To establish eligibility for Chapter 11 all a foreign company needs to show is that it is incorporated in the U.S. or has assets or operations here.

...
The most powerful benefits offered to foreign companies seeking Chapter 11 protection are the automatic stay, debtor in possession status and rejection of outstanding contacts.


Now, I am not a lawyer, but as most countries seem to not have bankruptcy laws that allow continued opperation, of course companies will seek out survival options.

The debtor in possession financing laws are a powerful incentive. The fact prior ownership will be zeroed out is another.

I believe the contracts would need a clause to prevent more lawsuits. However, that is often overlooked language.

What is more important is this form of bankruptcy gives PAL a chance to continue (diminished) opperations. e.g., lease rejections to cut cash burn.

Lightsaber

Akiestar wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

Is you are a fully-VACCINATED dual citizen (both US and Philippine passport holder) do you still have to quaranatine in the Philippines if you want to visit there?

Yes, the quarantine rules currently apply even to people who are fully vaccinated. I'm flying back in December (luckily not on PR; I'm flying KE and DL) and the rules as they currently stand require 14 days of quarantine: ten days at a hotel unless you're coming from a green list country, where the quarantine period is shortened to seven days, followed by the remaining time at home. Of course, the U.S. isn't on the green list except for American Samoa.

Thank you.

PAL wasn’t doing the best before COVID- why were the structural and strategic causes? MNL being over capacity? 77W seemed to big too me, and can’t speak for the local context - but brand felt very tired and outdated.

lightsaber wrote:

The fact prior ownership will be zeroed out is another.

It's not uncommon for shareholders to be wiped out, but it's not obligatory in a Ch 11 filing. AA's shareholders were not.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 0563432596

lightsaber wrote:

vhtje wrote:

asuflyer wrote:

The US, particularly the Southern District of New York is a preferred destination for bankruptcy and restructuring for companies with global exposure as the courts and law firms are well setup to handle large bankruptcy cases. During the bankruptcy contracts and items like aircraft leases, employees, suppliers can be renegotiated and terminated in ways that are more favorable for the company. So while the PR will continue to operate on a day to day basis they could easily reject aircraft leases that are too expensive and divest of assets that are financially burdening.

That all makes sense, but isn’t clear to me is what jurisdiction the Southern District of NY’s courts would have on companies and contracts not within the United States.

For example: how does this ‘protection’ prevent a Philippine creditor with a contract with the Philippine company from suing or even starting liquidation proceedings in the Philippines?

Wouldn’t PAL have to explicitly state in their contracts with suppliers, however long before the current process occurred, that the contract is subject to New York law?

It is quite common for companies to file bankruptcy in the USA or (not in link, my opinion) the UK:
http://internationalbusinesslawadvisor. ... bligations.

The threshold requirements for foreign companies seeking Chapter 11 protection is surprisingly easy. To establish eligibility for Chapter 11 all a foreign company needs to show is that it is incorporated in the U.S. or has assets or operations here.

...
The most powerful benefits offered to foreign companies seeking Chapter 11 protection are the automatic stay, debtor in possession status and rejection of outstanding contacts.


Now, I am not a lawyer, but as most countries seem to not have bankruptcy laws that allow continued opperation, of course companies will seek out survival options.

The debtor in possession financing laws are a powerful incentive. The fact prior ownership will be zeroed out is another.

I believe the contracts would need a clause to prevent more lawsuits. However, that is often overlooked language.

What is more important is this form of bankruptcy gives PAL a chance to continue (diminished) opperations. e.g., lease rejections to cut cash burn.

Lightsaber

I got the impression that filing in the US protects agains US creditors only. But in the airline industry, all big creditors are in the US or operating in the US. Debtor in possession financing will work if the investor is US based. I don't think small creditors in the Philippines and other countries then the US are included. And I don't see how stockmarket shareholding in Philippine can be affected without Philippine Courts approval but of course some entities might be transferred to the investors under the debtor in possession financing framework. This will affect share price significantly but not wipe out the shares.

That said, other countries are adopting elements of Chapter 11. So Singapore adopted many elements of chapter 11 in 2017, but earlier this year one company still filed in the US as their big problems (including the Queen Mary in Long Beach) as well as some of their asset holding subsidiaries were US registered.

When my company filed for Chapter 11, it was for US operations only. We (outside of US) saw no major difference other than medium to long term plans changing quite significantly with ongoing/short term operations not really changing, but inside the US it was a bloodbath with 24 out of 30 sites closed and a lot of people I worked with laid off.

Why is a Philippine company filing for Ch 11 in the United States?

OAHU747 wrote:

Why is a Philippine company filing for Ch 11 in the United States?

Perhaps the biggest creditors, such as Boeing, leasing companies, etc., are based in, or have significant operations in the U.S.?
I doubt if the U.S. filing protects PAL from being sued in the Philippine courts by the caterers and aircraft maintenance outfits, for example.

PAL entered court filing to reject the following leases:

A320 - RP-C8399
A321 - RP-C9910
A321 - RP-C9911
A321 - RP-C9925
A330-300 - RP-C8760
A330-300 - RP-C8766
A330-300 - RP-C8784
A330-300 - RP-C8785
A330-300 - RP-C8786
A350 - RP-C3503
A350 - RP-C3504
A350 - RP-C3506
A350 - RP-C3507
B777-300 - RP-C7777
B777-300 - RP-C7781
Q400 - RP-C5912

Obviously more to come as list does not add up to the 20+ frames they stated would be returned.

LAXintl, that looks more like a fleet reduction strategy, without fleet simplification. Do you interpret it differently?

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?

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.

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

AngMoh wrote:

And I don't see how stockmarket shareholding in Philippine can be affected without Philippine Courts approval but of course some entities might be transferred to the investors under the debtor in possession financing framework. This will affect share price significantly but not wipe out the shares.

PAL stated that they were pursuing similar protection from the Philippine court and bourse in parallel with the U.S. filing.

LAXintl wrote:

Obviously more to come as list does not add up to the 20+ frames they stated would be returned.

The number differs by +/- 2 frames depending on which article you're reading. For example, one says all Q400NGs will leave while another says 2 will remain. Anyway, included below is a breakdown of PR's leased fleet (can't guarantee accuracy though).....

http://philippineairspace.blogspot.com/ ... -rest.html

And while their president said there's little chance of the restructuring plan failing, Flightglobal reports that according to PAL, it's not certain the Chapter 11 proceedings will be finished within 2021.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/p ... 56.article

Polot wrote:

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.

That appears to be the case.....

Devilfish wrote:

And while their president said there's little chance of the restructuring plan failing, Flightglobal reports that according to PAL, it's not certain the Chapter 11 proceedings will be finished within 2021.....

I don't see why that's a worry on its own. Carriers can spend a long time in Ch 11: UA spent 1,150 days (yes, really, 4 digits).

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna11126203

MIflyer12 wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

And while their president said there's little chance of the restructuring plan failing, Flightglobal reports that according to PAL, it's not certain the Chapter 11 proceedings will be finished within 2021.....

I don't see why that's a worry on its own. Carriers can spend a long time in Ch 11: UA spent 1,150 days (yes, really, 4 digits).

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna11126203

IIRC Ch11 laws have changed subsequent to that making staying in Ch11 for an extended period of time difficult if not impossible (in part in response to UA’s excessively long Chapter 11 reorganization which was heavily criticized at the time). That’s why DL and NW filed on the same day- it was the last day to file before less favorable rules entered effect.

That said considering PAL just filed I would be shocked if they exited this year.

LAXintl wrote:

PAL entered court filing to reject the following leases:

A320 - RP-C8399
A321 - RP-C9910
A321 - RP-C9911
A321 - RP-C9925
A330-300 - RP-C8760
A330-300 - RP-C8766
A330-300 - RP-C8784
A330-300 - RP-C8785
A330-300 - RP-C8786
A350 - RP-C3503
A350 - RP-C3504
A350 - RP-C3506
A350 - RP-C3507
B777-300 - RP-C7777
B777-300 - RP-C7781
Q400 - RP-C5912

Obviously more to come as list does not add up to the 20+ frames they stated would be returned.

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.

smi0006 wrote:

PAL wasn’t doing the best before COVID- why were the structural and strategic causes? MNL being over capacity? 77W seemed to big too me, and can’t speak for the local context - but brand felt very tired and outdated.

While there were some financial losses pre-Covid, I hear the 77W was quite filled on the Transpac runs, as there's a lot of Filipino demand to and from US/Canada. Even on the Bangkok run, where it was a regular (out of three daily flights, 1 was opb a widebody) it was decently filled based on my experience. The 777-300ERs even have a lower capacity then the 747-400s they flew back then (370 vs 428 seats).

Manila has been becoming more congested until Covid, and PAL has been spreading out their operations throughout the different terminals. The new T2 North ramp helps alleviate some of the parking needs for the widebodies, and acts as bus gates for some of the narrowbodies, both domestic and international. IMO, transiting in MNL is still a pain and I'd rather transit in CEB when given the option.

This is probably also why some operations were shifted/added to Clark (which became a Q400 hub until Covid), and more flying done out of the southern cities.

As for the brand, haven't seen much call to change the brand (locally to say the least).

PAL has always had a cost issue, not a demand issue. The Filipino market is large but very price sensitive.

Polot wrote:

IIRC Ch11 laws have changed subsequent to that making staying in Ch11 for an extended period of time difficult if not impossible (in part in response to UA’s excessively long Chapter 11 reorganization which was heavily criticized at the time). That’s why DL and NW filed on the same day- it was the last day to file before less favorable rules entered effect.

Rules did change, yet lengthy Ch 11 bankruptcies continue. PG&E spent a year and a half in reorganization, exiting last year, for example.

That PAL doesn't commit to doing a rinse-and-spin in four months doesn't surprise me a bit.

MIflyer12 wrote:

That PAL doesn't commit to doing a rinse-and-spin in four months doesn't surprise me a bit.

Perhaps the coins expected to be dropped in the washer slot wouldn't come out of the piggy bank as promised?

https://www.philstar.com/business/stock ... ement-hope

Wonder what the airline's Master of Coins has to say about it...surely he wouldn't want to be thrown under the bus as well?



https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/ ... chapter-11

Quote:
"Negotiations must have been intense, I imagine. That, plus the other important part of the deal – arriving at terms acceptable to El Kapitan, specifically on how much he was willing to go to save his beleaguered carrier.

While there is no fool-proof plan, (Santa Maria) said, 'I don’t anticipate anything other than an asteroid hitting Manhattan, for example, stopping us from exiting.' Of course, we have yet to see if the airline will successfully exit this episode in its history.

It was almost midnight in New York when the press conference in Manila ended, but unlike Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris, it’s certainly not a vacation for Santa Maria and PAL senior vice president and CFO Nilo Rodriguez, and they won’t be slipping into a different world at midnight, unlike in Allen’s fantasy movie.

Instead, they will need all the time to prepare as the first hearing is set on Thursday, Sept. 9 at 10:30 a.m., New York time."


Unfortunately, it seems an 'asteroid' is fast approaching.

Be that as it may...the asteroid's trajectory might miss PR by a whisker.....

https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/ ... -dominguez