So, this was all about having a plan B in place should the negotiations for the investment deal fall apart?

Airplanepics wrote:

UAL have a flightplan in the system for N116UA

LEPA-GCLP-EGBB ...

Some are showing cancelled, but others are not. I still see these:
UA2297 MAN-AGP
UA2287 AGP-MAN
UA2285 PMI-MAN

I could be totally mixed up on the time zones, but looks like they're waiting and canceling them about 3 hours before scheduled departure?

Why not wait until an airline actually fails before getting UA B744s from the US involved?

If Monarch were not going under before today, it probably will now.

uta999 wrote:

Why not wait until an airline actually fails before getting UA B744s from the US involved?

If Monarch were not going under before today, it probably will now.

Would you prefer that they wait until they have stranded passengers all over the place before they started making moves? How long would people be stuck in airport terminals under that scenario? I think they should be commended for being pro-active for a change.

uta999 wrote:

Why not wait until an airline actually fails before getting UA B744s from the US involved?

If Monarch were not going under before today, it probably will now.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Do, and the airline sorts its act out - accused of jumping the gun, triggering a lack of confidence
Don't, and the airline collapses - cue loads of people wailing about being stranded, can't get back to work, kicked out of hotels, having to sleep in airports, recovery taking too long

Sadly, it seems that both the regulator and the airline have underestimated the power of the internet and social media, and as a result have not been particularly forthcoming about they whats, whys and whens. More openness about what is going on and when the next milestones might occur, even now while some people start asking whether the UA 744s will head to the UK tonight, would go a long way toward reducing the rumour-mongering and ill-informed comment. What has been said so far falls well short of that, and leaves the door open for further conjecture.

Very sad to see so many of you foaming at the mouth with delight in anticipation of the potential demise of Monarch. Now there is an odor of disappointment as Monarch appears to tread along. You should be ashamed. At the very least you owe it to yourself to realize why this would be a BAD thing for all of us, competition or not.

I wish the best for Monarch.

WYLTK wrote:

Very sad to see so many of you foaming at the mouth with delight in anticipation of the potential demise of Monarch. Now there is an odor of disappointment as Monarch appears to tread along. You should be ashamed. At the very least you owe it to yourself to realize why this would be a BAD thing for all of us, competition or not.

I wish the best for Monarch.

Where do you get that idea?

AndyEastMids wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Why not wait until an airline actually fails before getting UA B744s from the US involved?

If Monarch were not going under before today, it probably will now.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Do, and the airline sorts its act out - accused of jumping the gun, triggering a lack of confidence
Don't, and the airline collapses - cue loads of people wailing about being stranded, can't get back to work, kicked out of hotels, having to sleep in airports, recovery taking too long

Sadly, it seems that both the regulator and the airline have underestimated the power of the internet and social media, and as a result have not been particularly forthcoming about they whats, whys and whens. More openness about what is going on and when the next milestones might occur, even now while some people start asking whether the UA 744s will head to the UK tonight, would go a long way toward reducing the rumour-mongering and ill-informed comment. What has been said so far falls well short of that, and leaves the door open for further conjecture.

Seeing how Monarch have communicated - saying the rumour was utter nonsense yesterday, then today saying they are in the process of securing viable financing (which in clear terms means they are very much presently in danger) means that Monarch has lost any possible trust the public could have in them.

Their communication yesterday made sense, if indeed, they were to go under today. What do they care if they lied to the public if they cease operations.

This is not the case today and their terrible communication means that new bookings today must be at an all time low - meaning no liquidity is coming in, whereas presumably it being the end of month they have a lot of expenses on top of the ATOL renewal.

A better communication from CAA/ZB would have been - yes we're negotiating ATOL, financing, etc. , yes there's a chance Monarch may fail - but don't worry you're protected anyways and any new bookings will be voided if we do fail and people will get their money back. Then as you said, update 2-3 times per day explaining exactly what is going on.

Right now I can't imagine just how difficult it must be for monarch employees who are left in the dark and wondering if no news means bad news. I also wonder at what point this will turn into a Swissair or Ansett and Monarch's suppliers refuse to service them.

You guys are so soft. It's not foaming at the mouth. People on an avaiation site find onterest in rare movement of aircraft and enjoy trying to figure out what they are doing. Nothing more than that.

uta999 wrote:

Why not wait until an airline actually fails before getting UA B744s from the US involved?

If Monarch were not going under before today, it probably will now.

I can only guess, but I was once sadly involved in the pre planned shut down of a travel company (not an airline though). About a week before a tiny team of us were told it was likely and had to put in a contingency plan outlining how closure would happen, including establishing repatriation agreements for customers, staff and equipment. It looks to me as if Monarch have had to hold those discussions with the CAA, lets hope the money they allude to comes through.

It's interesting at least to see what little information is available for these flights on the UA site. A few seats are taken in J and Y, but the planes are otherwise empty. You can also look at the F upgrade waitlist, which clearly shows some people are checked in for UA2287, for example:

1. VEL, M.
2. AND, C.
3. HIL, S.
4. ABE, H.

Someone has messed up Monarch's wikipedia page. Replacing all mentions of the name Monarch with "Memories" and putting the introduction section in the past tense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_Airlines
Someone has it in for them anyway.

303dk wrote:

The charter aircraft are still there:
N120UA UA 744 at TFS
N116UA UA 744 at PMI
N819AX Omni 772 at BCN
N207AX Omni 762 at LGW
N733MA Miami 738 at LPA

N477AX was suspected to be one positioned to NAP, but it now looks like a military charter.

Any others?

Found another one:

C-GTSR TS A330 at AGP

It looks as if the finance needed could come from the Chinese group HNA -though they may be other suitors.
"It's understood that Monarch has been talking to possible investors including the Chinese conglomerate, HNA Group. If that comes to fruition it could open up new commercial possibilities for the airline"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37469743

It looks like any deal could well involve the sale of the airline or a stake in it to a new investor -rather than Greybull coming up with the cash required. Greybull owns 90% of Monarch.

intotheair wrote:

It's interesting at least to see what little information is available for these flights on the UA site. A few seats are taken in J and Y, but the planes are otherwise empty. You can also look at the F upgrade waitlist, which clearly shows some people are checked in for UA2287, for example:

1. VEL, M.
2. AND, C.
3. HIL, S.
4. ABE, H.

It's probably just the flight attendants. No reason to be in the jump seat. Or there may be additional crew that need to move to the next city for overnight or something.

"I also wonder at what point this will turn into a Swissair or Ansett and Monarch's suppliers refuse to service them."

Yes Runway23, this could well be a tipping point,

readytotaxi wrote:

"I also wonder at what point this will turn into a Swissair or Ansett and Monarch's suppliers refuse to service them."

Yes Runway23, this could well be a tipping point,

When Monarch stops paying them... and right now it seems as though Monarch is up to date!

What is it with people... you know why Monarch had to deny those rumors? Because people like all of you put them out their! Some aircraft were being coordinated around Europe possibly for a what if situation, something both the CAA and Monarch most likely wanted to keep under the had and quiet in the event they are not needed, however better to be safe than sorry, but since half the people in here got wind of it they decided it's the end, let's all make out like we know everything and they are shutting down at exactly 7am, goodbye Monarch! Causing more damage than needed! And I agree with other comments you should be ashamed of yourselves!

And for those of you with comments like this could well be the tipping point... oh yeah? Because they have just what? Carried on as usual which doesn't satisfy your mind so even though nothing has actually happened apart from seeking a new investor this means it's still the end? And their ground handling may stop servicing them? Maybe we should start that stupid rumor aswell and cause more damage than had already been done by over excited enthusiasts that don't know anything about the situation!

And I notice now that 90% of those who were posting about Monarchs demise only to be wrong and look like a fool with all their accurate sources... now all of a sudden have nothing to say for themselves!

How about we look at it another way!? Perhaps this new investment and this new injection of cash that is "enabling" Monarch to continue operations is the start of a new future for them, maybe we will see these new Max's delivered and some new destinations? Maybe we will we Monarch grow and become the esteemed airline it was when I was a child!

XLA2008 wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

"I also wonder at what point this will turn into a Swissair or Ansett and Monarch's suppliers refuse to service them."

Yes Runway23, this could well be a tipping point,

When Monarch stops paying them... and right now it seems as though Monarch is up to date!

Doesn't quite work like that. Let me refresh your memory that Swissair largely went down as quickly because all supplier requested immediate (cash) payments rather than deferred 15/30/45/60 payment terms. You can easily be up to date with all your payments, if the suppliers want to be paid immediately then you get into trouble.

If Monarch were to face the same situation as Swissair - that is pay up front for fuel, handling, etc. At one stage their financials won't follow. Seeing that Monarch have confirmed they are facing turbulent times, there is a real risk their suppliers will get nervous - that is the stage at which things could end for Monarch.

I'd guess it is the main reason Monarch keep saying everything is fine, as once one supplier pulls the plug or demands immediate payments then the others will sooner or later do the same, for fear of being the last fool standing without a chair.

Market confidence and getting a very quick influx of cash or new investors/bonds/loans is what will keep Monarch afloat or not.

runway23 wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

"I also wonder at what point this will turn into a Swissair or Ansett and Monarch's suppliers refuse to service them."

Yes Runway23, this could well be a tipping point,

When Monarch stops paying them... and right now it seems as though Monarch is up to date!

Doesn't quite work like that. Let me refresh your memory that Swissair largely went down as quickly because all supplier requested immediate (cash) payments rather than deferred 15/30/45/60 payment terms. You can easily be up to date with all your payments, if the suppliers want to be paid immediately then you get into trouble.

If Monarch were to face the same situation as Swissair - that is pay up front for fuel, handling, etc. At one stage their financials won't follow. Seeing that Monarch have confirmed they are facing turbulent times, there is a real risk their suppliers will get nervous - that is the stage at which things could end for Monarch.

I'd guess it is the main reason Monarch keep saying everything is fine, as once one supplier pulls the plug or demands immediate payments then the others will sooner or later do the same, for fear of being the last fool standing without a chair.

Market confidence and getting a very quick influx of cash or new investors/bonds/loans is what will keep Monarch afloat or not.

I get what your saying... but this hasn't happened has it? And they are operating as usual? And they aren't swissair? And their suppliers haven't said that have they? So... speculating about what? Nothing!!

I mean a catering truck might hit one of their A321's and cause it to be out of service cancelling flights, which in turn could be presumed by passengers that they are going under, causing people to cancel all bookings, which could then lead to Monarch going bankrupt, who in turn blame Virgin, and people then hate virgin so stop flying with them, which then causes Virgin to go bankrupt... see where I'm going with?

XLA2008 wrote:

runway23 wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

When Monarch stops paying them... and right now it seems as though Monarch is up to date!

Doesn't quite work like that. Let me refresh your memory that Swissair largely went down as quickly because all supplier requested immediate (cash) payments rather than deferred 15/30/45/60 payment terms. You can easily be up to date with all your payments, if the suppliers want to be paid immediately then you get into trouble.

If Monarch were to face the same situation as Swissair - that is pay up front for fuel, handling, etc. At one stage their financials won't follow. Seeing that Monarch have confirmed they are facing turbulent times, there is a real risk their suppliers will get nervous - that is the stage at which things could end for Monarch.

I'd guess it is the main reason Monarch keep saying everything is fine, as once one supplier pulls the plug or demands immediate payments then the others will sooner or later do the same, for fear of being the last fool standing without a chair.

Market confidence and getting a very quick influx of cash or new investors/bonds/loans is what will keep Monarch afloat or not.

I get what your saying... but this hasn't happened has it? And they are operating as usual? And they aren't swissair? And their suppliers haven't said that have they? So... speculating about what? Nothing!!

I mean a catering truck might hit one of their A321's and cause it to be out of service cancelling flights, which in turn could be presumed by passengers that they are going under, causing people to cancel all bookings, which could then lead to Monarch going bankrupt, who in turn blame Virgin, and people then hate virgin so stop flying with them, which then causes Virgin to go bankrupt... see where I'm going with?

Your posts read like a Donald Trump speech.

Why would the CAA use US carriers rather than other UK registered airlines and/or EU carriers?

burnsie28 wrote:

Why would the CAA use US carriers rather than other UK registered airlines and/or EU carriers?

Cost and suitable aircraft availability.

XLA2008 wrote:

What is it with people... you know why Monarch had to deny those rumors? Because people like all of you put them out their! Some aircraft were being coordinated around Europe possibly for a what if situation, something both the CAA and Monarch most likely wanted to keep under the had and quiet in the event they are not needed, however better to be safe than sorry, but since half the people in here got wind of it they decided it's the end, let's all make out like we know everything and they are shutting down at exactly 7am, goodbye Monarch! Causing more damage than needed! And I agree with other comments you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Yes, aviation enthusiasts, stop noticing when aircraft are in unexpected places and then stop using your critical thinking skills to try to figure out what is going on.

I think that you're taking internet speculation a little too seriously and free press not seriously enough. The fact is that people noticed, shared, speculated based on history of other airlines in similar situations, and were largely right: Right airline, right reason, right who chartered the planes. That's how it should work, especially in the context of an aviation forum.

Interesting Independent article on a "shadow airline" operation:

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 29991.html

Monarch latest: Mystery over ‘shadow airline’ apparently created for repatriating passengers

From the busy yet orderly pattern of departures and arrivals between five UK airports and 22 European destinations, it looked like a typical Monday for the staff and passengers of Britain's oldest independent airline, Monarch.

Yet a glimpse at the airline's Twitter feed revealed mantra repeated many times each hour: “Our flights are operating as normal, carrying Monarch passengers as scheduled.”

Rumours began to spread when aircraft enthusiasts identified unusual plane movements that appeared to constitute a “shadow airline” emulating Monarch's normal schedule. Jumbo jets belonging to United were flown from Chicago to the key holiday airports of Palma and Tenerife South, with smaller planes deployed to Las Palmas and Naples.

Varsity1 wrote:

Your posts read like a Donald Trump speech.

No, no, my friend. XLA2008 is coherent and moves with brisk logic from A to B to C. You simply cannot accuse the Donald of that.

An interesting thought to speculate upon. What if the Donald stepped in as the deep-pockets savior of Monarch, in advance of tonight's debate. His opening statement could be "Sorry I didn't have time to prepare for this little pow-wow, I was busy rescuing a British airline from the follies of Brexit." Never mind that the Donald was all for Brexit, wasn't he?

I feel terrible for suggesting this scenario. Please forget that I said anything.

burnsie28 wrote:

Why would the CAA use US carriers rather than other UK registered airlines and/or EU carriers?

It's a good question to ask. I can only come up with one reasonable assumption: last minute availability.

Summa767 wrote:

It looks as if the finance needed could come from the Chinese group HNA -though they may be other suitors.
"It's understood that Monarch has been talking to possible investors including the Chinese conglomerate, HNA Group. If that comes to fruition it could open up new commercial possibilities for the airline"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37469743

It looks like any deal could well involve the sale of the airline or a stake in it to a new investor -rather than Greybull coming up with the cash required. Greybull owns 90% of Monarch.

When nobody else will bail you out, who you gonna call? The Chinese!! They will fund anyone...including actual countries. The devil is in the details.

https://www.theindependent.co.zw/2016/0 ... us5bn-zim/

runway23 wrote:

This is not the case today and their terrible communication means that new bookings today must be at an all time low - meaning no liquidity is coming in, whereas presumably it being the end of month they have a lot of expenses on top of the ATOL renewal.

I too am intrigued to see how this has affected their forward bookings over the last 24hrs or so. You could class me as one potential customer for Monarch because I have a requirement to fly to AGP next September for a wedding and Monarch are one of my options that I can book right now if I so wished (MAN or LPL are my most convenient airports). Given the uncertainty combined with the fact that I have no shortage of alternative options (easyJet and Ryanair from LPL, easyJet, Ryanair, Jet2, Norwegian, Thomas Cook and Thomson) I am now sitting tight to see how things pan out, as well as seeing what fares are like.

303dk wrote:

Yes, aviation enthusiasts, stop noticing when aircraft are in unexpected places and then stop using your critical thinking skills to try to figure out what is going on.

I think that you're taking internet speculation a little too seriously and free press not seriously enough. The fact is that people noticed, shared, speculated based on history of other airlines in similar situations, and were largely right: Right airline, right reason, right who chartered the planes. That's how it should work, especially in the context of an aviation forum.

Indeed. If a United 747 is loaded into the schedules to fly to places that are "rare" for a United 747 and involve flights to/from countries that aren't the USA and run to flight times (or even numbers) that are similar/identical to that of another carrier, people are going to talk about it whether some like it or not. The problems occur when some people use the situation to make negative comments based on grudges or proclaim opinions and speculation as fact.

And for the record, I for one will be sad to see Monarch disappear if it comes to that and it would be a shame if one of the UK's oldest airlines is no longer flying in the skies. I've not flown them for about 3 years, but the times I've used them they've mostly been great and have no qualms about flying them. Given their woes in recent years I'm not overly optimistic, but I do feel for all the staff at this time and I am hoping for the best.

Boeing74741R wrote:

I too am intrigued to see how this has affected their forward bookings over the last 24hrs or so.

I'd be shocked if the majority of their current or potential customers heard anything about it. It didn't even make the top of the BBC business page.

XLA2008 wrote:

What is it with people... you know why Monarch had to deny those rumors? Because people like all of you put them out their! Some aircraft were being coordinated around Europe possibly for a what if situation, something both the CAA and Monarch most likely wanted to keep under the had and quiet in the event they are not needed, however better to be safe than sorry, but since half the people in here got wind of it they decided it's the end, let's all make out like we know everything and they are shutting down at exactly 7am, goodbye Monarch! Causing more damage than needed! And I agree with other comments you should be ashamed of yourselves!

In this day and age, with the data feeds available to almost anyone, it was extremely naive if both the regulator and the airline expected the unusual movement of aircraft from the USA to Europe to go unnoticed. And when unusual things happen, it us normal for people to speculate as to why. As I said previously, the communication of what was going on was woeful - and, I might add, with several widebodies scattered around Europe, still is.

303dk wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

I too am intrigued to see how this has affected their forward bookings over the last 24hrs or so.

I'd be shocked if the majority of their current or potential customers heard anything about it. It didn't even make the top of the BBC business page.

I don't know about that. You are talking about an era of Social Media where people post on Facebook before they call 911.

few going on remote at Manc

http://postimg.org/image/cajmiha85/

303dk wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

What is it with people... you know why Monarch had to deny those rumors? Because people like all of you put them out their! Some aircraft were being coordinated around Europe possibly for a what if situation, something both the CAA and Monarch most likely wanted to keep under the had and quiet in the event they are not needed, however better to be safe than sorry, but since half the people in here got wind of it they decided it's the end, let's all make out like we know everything and they are shutting down at exactly 7am, goodbye Monarch! Causing more damage than needed! And I agree with other comments you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Yes, aviation enthusiasts, stop noticing when aircraft are in unexpected places and then stop using your critical thinking skills to try to figure out what is going on.

I think that you're taking internet speculation a little too seriously and free press not seriously enough. The fact is that people noticed, shared, speculated based on history of other airlines in similar situations, and were largely right: Right airline, right reason, right who chartered the planes. That's how it should work, especially in the context of an aviation forum.

By all means the point of this forum is to discuss what is happening in the industry etc. problems arise when so called know it all's then start stating rumor as fact! Which is exactly what's happened here! it started out as a discussion and quickly turned to something different! By the end of the night Monarch was all but written off, it was gone, bye bye Monarch! yet that didn't happen at all did it?

Yes Monarch may have been in some very hot water... but that does not mean, as this scenario has grown to show, it does not mean that they are going bust! Some of these so called facts people have been spewing out of their holes has just been utter nonsense, I recall reading (I am not sure if it was A.net or PPrune I am just using it for example) but I recall reading that Monarch had silently and quickly sold its maintenance and engineering facilities to Jet2 last night in a bid to get rid of assets... sorry but what utter crap! Still that was a fact (NOT) which fuelled people even more to come up with even more rubbish! Now yes we know a few things are true, like aircraft being moved, flight numbers matching etc, but bear in mind that is all we knew to be true, and still as of right now it is STILL all we know to be true, nobody has come forward to explain and nobody has told us why they were in place, yet still know it all's must know it all, however truth of the matter is they know nothing!

jbs2886 wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

303dk wrote:

Yes, aviation enthusiasts, stop noticing when aircraft are in unexpected places and then stop using your critical thinking skills to try to figure out what is going on.

I think that you're taking internet speculation a little too seriously and free press not seriously enough. The fact is that people noticed, shared, speculated based on history of other airlines in similar situations, and were largely right: Right airline, right reason, right who chartered the planes. That's how it should work, especially in the context of an aviation forum.

By all means the point of this forum is to discuss what is happening in the industry etc. problems arise when so called know it all's then start stating rumor as fact! Which is exactly what's happened here! it started out as a discussion and quickly turned to something different! By the end of the night Monarch was all but written off, it was gone, bye bye Monarch! yet that didn't happen at all did it?

Yes Monarch may have been in some very hot water... but that does not mean, as this scenario has grown to show, it does not mean that they are going bust! Some of these so called facts people have been spewing out of their holes has just been utter nonsense, yes we know a few things are true, like aircraft being moved, flight numbers matching etc, but bear in mind that is all we knew to be true, and still as of right now it is STILL all we know to be true, nobody has come forward to explain and nobody has told us why they were in place, yet still know it all's must know it all, however truth of the matter is they know nothing!

Got it, no reasonable speculation regarding airlines on an airline forum. We should always wait until the company tells us something factually.

No people need to learn the difference between SPECULATION & FACT!!!! 20% of things discussed on this topic where fact! 80% was utter nonsense people proclaimed was fact! To which now they look very foolish! And whats worse, these people spilling out their rubbish could potentially have caused Monarch a lot more problems!! Which is not what is needed when peoples livelihoods are at stake!

The 7am stuff was pretty speculative. However, the fact that several huge airplanes were positioned all over Europe from the US with schedules entered in to flight systems is 100% true. They probably should have restricted their schedules so they didn't go out i public channels.

jbs2886 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

The 7am stuff was pretty speculative. However, the fact that several huge airplanes were positioned all over Europe from the US with schedules entered in to flight systems is 100% true. They probably should have restricted their schedules so they didn't go out i public channels.

To an extent, the 7am stuff was reasonable based on schedules and other comments. But no one ever said it was a done deal they were going under; I think (and I'm speculating) that they did actually get an investor or something close enough to avoid shutting down. The schedules with US/Canadian aircraft were far too coincidental to be ignored.

I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I hope they stick around, mainly for the 737 Max order!

I think the 7am stuff was based on some UK business reporting requirements, but I didn't ever figure out what exactly it was. It also fit the timeline for when the charter schedules were loaded (which was fact: the planes are there and the schedules viewable to the public). I also think that it's fair to speculate now on why the charter aircraft are still there waiting and why the charter flights haven't all been cancelled. UA2285 is still showing up for tomorrow, for example.

one shot (bad shot) from the 747 parked ad lepa

N116UA United B744 by Fabian X, en Flickr

jbs2886 wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Is that a factual percentage or just an amount proclaimed as fact?

Neither proclaimed or stated! Guessing your one of the know it all's lol

Their facebook-page header is now "MEMORIES are MONARCH": https://www.facebook.com/Monarch/

Is it a sign?!

Just found a video of the United landing at TFS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twVADfejwBk

Interestingly their twitter account doesn't seem to be manned right now - it does say they're open until 1730 though. Last night, of course, it was apparently manned continuously. Last tweet was around 3 hours ago, and there a lot of questions being asked of them on twitter still.

303dk wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

The 7am stuff was pretty speculative. However, the fact that several huge airplanes were positioned all over Europe from the US with schedules entered in to flight systems is 100% true. They probably should have restricted their schedules so they didn't go out i public channels.

To an extent, the 7am stuff was reasonable based on schedules and other comments. But no one ever said it was a done deal they were going under; I think (and I'm speculating) that they did actually get an investor or something close enough to avoid shutting down. The schedules with US/Canadian aircraft were far too coincidental to be ignored.

I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I hope they stick around, mainly for the 737 Max order!

I think the 7am stuff was based on some UK business reporting requirements, but I didn't ever figure out what exactly it was. It also fit the timeline for when the charter schedules were loaded (which was fact: the planes are there and the schedules viewable to the public). I also think that it's fair to speculate now on why the charter aircraft are still there waiting and why the charter flights haven't all been cancelled. UA2285 is still showing up for tomorrow, for example.

My guess is they have an investor that is currently doing their research if they want to do it or not. If they are happy they will inject the money in the next 24-72 hours. If they are not happy, then United will open the door the the 747 and begin operations...

303dk wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

I too am intrigued to see how this has affected their forward bookings over the last 24hrs or so.

I'd be shocked if the majority of their current or potential customers heard anything about it. It didn't even make the top of the BBC business page.

It was top of the business page at 8am this morning, and featured heavily this morning on the business rolling news ticker.

303dk wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

The 7am stuff was pretty speculative. However, the fact that several huge airplanes were positioned all over Europe from the US with schedules entered in to flight systems is 100% true. They probably should have restricted their schedules so they didn't go out i public channels.

To an extent, the 7am stuff was reasonable based on schedules and other comments. But no one ever said it was a done deal they were going under; I think (and I'm speculating) that they did actually get an investor or something close enough to avoid shutting down. The schedules with US/Canadian aircraft were far too coincidental to be ignored.

I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I hope they stick around, mainly for the 737 Max order!

I think the 7am stuff was based on some UK business reporting requirements, but I didn't ever figure out what exactly it was. It also fit the timeline for when the charter schedules were loaded (which was fact: the planes are there and the schedules viewable to the public). I also think that it's fair to speculate now on why the charter aircraft are still there waiting and why the charter flights haven't all been cancelled. UA2285 is still showing up for tomorrow, for example.

The 7am was I believe based on the stock exchange opening, what the people coming up with this however were forgetting was that Greybull is not an exchange listed company.

I would argue that had the CAA commandeered aircraft from the likes of HiFly or Air Atlanta much of this speculation could have been avoided. Since they aren't strangers at busy holiday airports doing sub-charter work. But the sight of UA 744's in places like PMI & TFS is bound to raise interest.

Mancboy1 wrote:

few going on remote at Manc

http://postimg.org/image/cajmiha85/

Sorry, but this is the kind of crap that the Internet doesn't need. If you're predicting the demise of an airline based on the fact a few based aircraft are being parked remotely, then every airline in the UK is going bust tonight. easyJet have 15-20 aircraft park remotely every night at Gatwick, let's predict their cessation as well.

I appreciate that most things in this world are ruined by social media these days, but the fact that a few sad, pathetic individuals have put the livelihoods of 2800 people and their families in jeopardy because they had nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon than track United 747s on Flightradar24 or scan airport departure boards in the hope of finding something different is another level. Thankfully, these 2800 hardworking individuals will continue to be able to pay their mortgages and feed their families, despite the best efforts of certain individuals to see them made redundant.