Reports breaking in the press that Monarch are in difficulty again

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mona ... -6csjng90z (paywall)

Make of this what you will, but the story is dated today (30/9/2017). Seems a bit odd after they were discussing longhaul but the summer season is ending and carriers can sit back and count their money for the third quarter. If there isn't enough cash to get them through winter then maybe a fast trip to receivership is indicated.

Yeah - I've seen something similar in the Daily Mail today - I hope it's just the press putting two and two together and making five.
The DM only ever prints negative stuff anyway, unless it's about the Royal family.

There is value in the company (hopefully) as the MAX leases actually have some saleability. MAEL is a money maker too.

I am wondering if someone in the press has got hold of a whisper that confidential takeover or part sale talks have not gone well.

easyJet, Wizz Air join Monarch Airlines fray

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... lines-fray

The general media have lifting this directly from rumours here and in dried fruit

These aren't rumours. UK CAA has already positioned two Qatari A320s to STN should Monarch not have their ATOL licence renewed.

Channex757 wrote:

There is value in the company (hopefully) as the MAX leases actually have some saleability. MAEL is a money maker too.

I am wondering if someone in the press has got hold of a whisper that confidential takeover or part sale talks have not gone well.

Quite possibly, to make the situation worse and put them (Monarch) in a tighter spot. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

That said, could see some synergy with EasyJet for short haul and maybe use the MAX order for thin long-haul ops, if as mentioned elsewhere on the site that Monarch are considering long haul ops (and I am assuming we are talking to the US east coast). Then the slots could be of use for Norwegian and would the MAX. Whatever the outcome I hope the staff have jobs to go to and the Monarch brand stays in some form.

I remember Monarch from a kid - not from any airport but from living in Nottingham and watching their then brnad new 757 flying circuits around the city (a good 14 miles from EMA), spooling its engines up to make short burst of climb then descending - at a pretty low altitude (3,000 ft). Think I read it was something to do with flying around the Hucknall RR site. Anyway, hope for good news. Good airline with great service in my exp.

lhrsfosyd wrote:

These aren't rumours. UK CAA has already positioned two Qatari A320s to STN should Monarch not have their ATOL licence renewed.

And this is 100% confirmed? 2 A320s is nothing considering MON operate mainly A321s. Given the saga previously where 747s etc were positioned in and that backfired massively against the CAA, I would've thought they'd be more cautious. Also MON don't fly to STN, It's pointless having the aircraft in the UK as they should be bringing people back to the UK.
This would make more sense to be something to do with FR than monarch given STN is FRs biggest base and their recent crewing issues and PR about minimising delays

Channex757 wrote:

There is value in the company (hopefully) as the MAX leases actually have some saleability. MAEL is a money maker too.

MAEL is certainly a valuable asset and remains a renowned entity. But Monarch have already entered into sale and leaseback deals with Boeing on the MAX's - I'd question how much value there is here.

The value Monarch as an airline bring is slot share and staff - predominantly pilots. The entire fleet is leased, customer base is of fading importance and there are few routes where they see no competition.

For the sake of all the staff and passengers, I hope a rabbit is pulled out of the hat here... again.

Sad - Sky News now reporting: 'Monarch prays for lifeline as CAA considers licence extension' http://news.sky.com/story/monarch-prays ... n-11060556

Of course Monarch have been through this before so anything could happen next.

caaardiff wrote:

Also MON don't fly to STN, It's pointless having the aircraft in the UK as they should be bringing people back to the UK.

They've got to park the planes somewhere until they need to be used, if they use them at all, STN has plenty of remote stands for that. STN is within 4 hours of just about every Monarch destination, which is a great deal nearer than leaving them at Qatar until called for. When Monarch got very close to the edge before, US-registered 744s were on standby in various parts of Europe, but not all were at airports served by Monarch. The CAA has a plan for this, airlines have failed before, and by October there starts to be capacity in the the short notice charter market across Europe too. It's just convenient for the CAA that Qatar has a surplus of shorthaul planes and crews due to the airspace closures in the Middle East so can pre-position, because the dwindling 744 fleets in the USA can't help out much this time.

caaardiff wrote:

lhrsfosyd wrote:

These aren't rumours. UK CAA has already positioned two Qatari A320s to STN should Monarch not have their ATOL licence renewed.

And this is 100% confirmed? 2 A320s is nothing considering MON operate mainly A321s. Given the saga previously where 747s etc were positioned in and that backfired massively against the CAA, I would've thought they'd be more cautious. Also MON don't fly to STN, It's pointless having the aircraft in the UK as they should be bringing people back to the UK.

The reason is rumoured, but it's 100% confirmed that the aircraft have arrived. STN makes sense when you look at parking issues.

You say the CAA need to be more cautious but that is precisely what they are doing if this rumour is true, so you presumably mean bullish? Lining up aircraft to repatriate the public is part of the ATOL remit, so ensuring a plan is in place when a member failure looks imminent is the cautious approach. Consider the alternative: UK holiday makers stranded across Europe whilst a fleet is assembled. This isn't just bad press, it incurs costs which ATOL foot the bill for, so I suggest it was a well hedged approach to a frankly ridiculous situation last time around, which Monarch/Greybull exasperated, and didn't backfire at all.

This is just sad and the staff must be worried sick for a second time.

Didn’t those Qatar A320’s arrive full of crew? With a potential use for another Airline?

Wes...

CAA would only repatriate people who purchased packaged holidays with Monarch which are protected under ATOL scheme. Flight only passengers do not benefit from such protection hence only two aircraft for now.

The poor staff yet again. Considering they saved ZB by taking paycuts and pension reforms you'd at least hope they'd be treated better then annually fearing for where they'd end up.

Monarch has been saying since before last time it was looking to consolidate either buying or being bought and there's always an announcement. EZY are buying, Norweigan are buying, dumping SH, going to NYC twice daily etc.

ATOL should be less of an issue this year because ironically its such a small part of ZB's business - if it wasn't and they'd concentrated on package holiday side (which it had the experience and brands to go after) rather then low cost airline it might be in a better situation.

Ultimately i highly doubt it will be licence renewal that kills Monarch, more likely if greybull decide its worth more in parts. After all this is the company thats been involved with multiple companies demise. It left them hanging long enough last year.

Hopefully Monday morning Norwegian or Easy will take it over and save the majority of staff where they can be managed by airlines that have done a much better job then ZB management over the last couple of years and it can have an owner that will be interested long term.

Why doesn't the CAA employ Monarch or instruct Ryanair to employ Monarch to fill in the Ryanair UK winter schedule gaps out of Stansted and Send Qatar back to Doha ? At least they'd be supporting a 'G' registered airline, or is that not important ?

JannEejit wrote:

Why doesn't the CAA employ Monarch or instruct Ryanair to employ Monarch to fill in the Ryanair UK winter schedule gaps out of Stansted and Send Qatar back to Doha ? At least they'd be supporting a 'G' registered airline, or is that not important ?

Not forgetting that ZB has its own schedule of flying to complete they aren't sat around doing nothing.

It would be on Ryanair to choose to employ anyone not the CAA's job to instruct anyone. If Ryanair chose to cancel all its flights and loose money it held it would have the right to do so without involvement of CAA or other equivalent because its a privately run business - (of course for as long as it could sustain any loss in fulfilling its required obligations). Presumably the reason it hasn't chartered cover is a combination of lack of availability and because that's more expensive to achieve at short notice and it figures its cheaper to do what its done. Either way not really relevant to ZB.

"Why doesn't the CAA employ Monarch or instruct Ryanair to employ Monarch to fill in the Ryanair UK winter schedule gaps out of Stansted and Send Qatar back to Doha ? At least they'd be supporting a 'G' registered airline, or is that not important ?"
Because Ryanair doesn't give a toss about its passengers and want to get the Crewing crisis sorted at the bare minimum cost

Its an absolute joke the greybull have allowed it to go down to the wire again - in turn allowing all the speculation. It should have kept its mouth shut including on telling staff anything until it had an announcement to make to avoid putting ZB at risk.

It has totally mismanaged itself yet again - not only with this renewal but also by releasing stupid statements like - "we're reviewing the strategic shape of the business" because yet again it looks incompetent and encourages speculation. Last year it kept dragging out statements and saying - announcement imminently and it was weeks later.

Lets not forget sky news as reporting easy and wizz air as making bids for the airline -so shows how much speculation is about with the same news channel reporting someone is buying it and that it is now praying for a lifeline only hours apart.
http://news.sky.com/story/monarch-lands ... k-11056276
Also sky have used the same statement from Monarch to describe the airline as having a bidder and for it's demise.

Not to mention talk of Norwegian involvement and ZB launching New York from BHX.

Either way until the ink was on the dotted line ZB shouldn't have been making any noise to avoid all this. The only thing it should have been on the offensive about was following last year is shouting about having this ATOL licence locked down which would have shut this crap down until it was actually ready to announce anything else.

Statement from the CAA saying ATOL will cover flights booked tomorrow for ZB - so at least 24 hour extension
https://www.caa.co.uk/News/ATOL-renewal-update/
Also stating they will provide daily updates.

I'm guessing easy and wiz not offering enough for monarch that's why it's last minute . I think greybull would have hoped to have sold them by now . Now they haven't will have to pay up again

Qatar has those planes displaced from its abortive Saudi venture too. Easy to see which are which as the ones for Saudi Arabia have CFM56 motors whereas QR's own fleet have IAE.

Not a bad idea to park them at STN really. The BA situation does look like rumbling on and there's a chance the CAA might want them. A bit of ACMI flying is a possibility too; QR can quickly move crews around if needed.

Seems the owners have started a new company, including some current staff.

Any ideas what is happening? Seems it's an airline?

Here's the link:
http://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/shelfco-2 ... -10980785/

mattyfitzg wrote:

Seems the owners have started a new company, including some current staff.

Any ideas what is happening? Seems it's an airline?

Here's the link:
http://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/shelfco-2 ... -10980785/

Its not unusual for companies to have other companies, usual a tax or risk thing - its not like ZB was one company anyway...

Monarch Travel Group Limited
Monarch Holidays Limited
Monarch Airlines Leasing Limited
First Aviation Limited
Monarch Technical Support Limited
Monarch 2011 Limited
Monarch Group Management Limited
Somewhere2stay Limited
MH Aviation Transport Limited

Although the timing is probably most relevant given the supposed BHX - NYC announcement. Most interesting is that its called 'shelf company' and why they would need one.

Also interesting is that Wizz air set up a new uk company the following day. Weren't they a reported bidder?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10982241

It was stated elsewhere that Wizz were interested in Monarch as a shortcut to a UK AOC.

How would that work, if Monarch was sold to Wizz with the AOC how could Monarch start a new longhaul op? Is there any reason why it would be easier for Monarch to get a UK AOC than Wizz?

lee757 wrote:

Although the timing is probably most relevant given the supposed BHX - NYC announcement. Most interesting is that its called 'shelf company' and why they would need one.

Not really, it just means they used an already existing shelf company without bothering to rename it. Renaming a company (having done it a few months back) is a pain, especially if you're busy in a sale process. Creating a new company maybe due to some (but not all) assets being sold as a going concern, but it could be just about anything.

Ryanair01 wrote:

Not really, it just means they used an already existing shelf company without bothering to rename it.

They created it from scratch on the 25th so they could have called it anything at all. It wasn't a pre existing shelf co transferred to ZB.

Air Transat currently has an A332 in Bordeaux with an A310 currently positioning there (TS082) and a 2nd A332 due to leave YUL in an hour (TS083). They are all blocked off as "UK CAA" in the system, looks like they will ferry from BOD to MAN on Oct 2nd. All 3 frames are blocked as "UK CAA" until Oct 11th currently. Transat positioned 2 A332's for the CAA last time when Monarch was on the brink of bankruptcy.

Here we go again...

This is ridiculous.

I've heard that Air Transat have a crew waiting for a positioning flight but they do not know where exactly to, other than it is to some place in the med. Looks like some airlines are on standby for the possible inevitable.

Andy33 wrote:

caaardiff wrote:

Also MON don't fly to STN, It's pointless having the aircraft in the UK as they should be bringing people back to the UK.

They've got to park the planes somewhere until they need to be used, if they use them at all, STN has plenty of remote stands for that. STN is within 4 hours of just about every Monarch destination, which is a great deal nearer than leaving them at Qatar until called for. When Monarch got very close to the edge before, US-registered 744s were on standby in various parts of Europe, but not all were at airports served by Monarch. The CAA has a plan for this, airlines have failed before, and by October there starts to be capacity in the the short notice charter market across Europe too. It's just convenient for the CAA that Qatar has a surplus of shorthaul planes and crews due to the airspace closures in the Middle East so can pre-position, because the dwindling 744 fleets in the USA can't help out much this time.

The CAA has also requested that Qatar Airways hold eight additional A320s on standby in Doha as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... ate-doubt/

Amazing is that Hi Fly hasn't been put on standby. As it is, Monarch received a 1-day reprieve to carry out flight operations today.

As for Wizz Air, it would be a coup for them if they can get the airline just for the AOC.

Why would the CAA be chartering that many? If only circa 5% of the sales are ATOL wouldn't it be cheaper, quicker & easier to put pax on other carriers IF it was actually required. Last time round it was pretty much all of the business why do you need an a330 to cover roughly 11 pax off per 321?
Very rough calculation granted - but If there's 100k passengers who have travelled with ZB as reported and 5%/ 5k are ATOL across 40ish destinations, thats 120 ish pax in each place which are eligible. These are also going into 5 ZB bases - so circa 25 pax for each flight. Yes it will be more or less to some destinations but my point really is why would you charter multiple 330's and the like when you could drop them on the likes of TCX, TUI, EZY (even FR) etc - none of who will be running at full LF currently and they'll be multiple flights per day in many cases, even by same carriers.

If the CAA has arranged it doesn't seem to help matters with this either, its not exactly discreet and is either contributing further to making the business unstable or is completely wasting money like last year. Surely it should have also been much more proactive about concluding renewal in advance given the millions is wasted last year.

Also re 24 hour reprieve - it got around 12 days of extensions last year so it might not be that quick regardless.

Again hopefully there's truth in Norwegian, Wizz or Easy buying it - ZB staff deserve better. Fingers crossed for them none of the above is needed and something good comes out of it.

Seems like a lot of money to do every year for caa and the tax payer . Would it not be cheaper to have law where req assets are requisitioned by airline to recover passengers using caa for ins etc

Instead of criticising the CAA, why not criticise the owners of Monarch? It isn't the CAA who is leaving everything to the last minute. Fairly obviously Greybull, who own Monarch, wanted to sell all or most of it and as a result didn't want to inject more funds into the business. Equally obviously they have failed to find anyone who will pay what they want for it, or it would already have been sold. All the prospective buyers are well aware of the hard deadline for ATOL renewal.
Now the CAA is applying visible pressure to Greybull, who face three choices - sell at the best price being offered; inject enough funds into Monarch to satisfy the CAA for another year, or lose the ATOL certificate and then have a holiday business that is effectively worthless and an airline brand irreversibly tainted by association. The CAA did the same last year, and eventually funding was forthcoming. But if they had no contingency plan for what would happen if no funding was found, they'd be in neglect of their duties as administrators of the ATOL scheme.

How much have greybull put into monarch? I doubt any airline going to pay what they paid.

It's worth mentioning Monarch have a brand spanking new engineering hangar at BHX with a lot of customers signed up. If Flybe had the money, perhaps they would go for it. Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens with it.

Andy33 wrote:

Instead of criticising the CAA, why not criticise the owners of Monarch? It isn't the CAA who is leaving everything to the last minute. Fairly obviously Greybull, who own Monarch, wanted to sell all or most of it and as a result didn't want to inject more funds into the business. Equally obviously they have failed to find anyone who will pay what they want for it, or it would already have been sold. All the prospective buyers are well aware of the hard deadline for ATOL renewal.
Now the CAA is applying visible pressure to Greybull, who face three choices - sell at the best price being offered; inject enough funds into Monarch to satisfy the CAA for another year, or lose the ATOL certificate and then have a holiday business that is effectively worthless and an airline brand irreversibly tainted by association. The CAA did the same last year, and eventually funding was forthcoming. But if they had no contingency plan for what would happen if no funding was found, they'd be in neglect of their duties as administrators of the ATOL scheme.

Dont get me wrong greybull are atrocious. But the CAA also deserves criticism too. Its clearly marked Monarch out on its website in reference to extending its ATOL by just 24 hours (no other ATOL renewal mentioned despite arranging over 1k others) and its damaging confidence in the business again following on from the year before where it indiscreetly arranged a shadow airline and contributed to loss of confidence and bookings in ZB. Those actions last year are also being felt this year and yet its taking a similar attitude. Yes Greybull carry fault but so does the CAA - not to mention it should be answering for the millions it wasted last year. If ZB folded last year then the CAA would have been partially to blame.

Just because they are applying the same tactics as last year doesnt mean the result will be the same. You also forget that greybull has a 4th option and thats assessing ZB is worth more if it folds, knowing that the CAA will pick up the tab. By all means apply pressure but dont do it publicly. There's circa 3,000 staff that deserve better then being a pawn in a greybull / CAA pissing contest.

According to papers decision by caa 4pm today

I don’t really understand. With it being their holiday arm in trouble, if that folds why can’t they be flown on the scheduled flights that Monarch operate, unded by the CAA? As the airline would still be operating just not their holiday business? So if a family booked with monarch holidays and are in Dalaman say, the ATOL scheme would pay for them to fly with a Monarch flight as opposed to chartering QR A320’s? Sure there is a reason I just don’t understand!

And why is the airline in trouble if it is their holiday business in trouble when it only accounts for 5% of their revenue/pax numbers?

I think the caa must have information that the airline may cease trading and go into liquidation otherwise it does seem like an over reaction

f4f3a wrote:

How much have greybull put into monarch? I doubt any airline going to pay what they paid.

I've heard reports on the news that they put in around £165M last year.

I hope this gets sorted quickly. I have a flight booked BHX - AGP on 1st December.

The Independent website is reporting the Monarch have effectively stopped selling tickets by making themselves too expensive to appear on search engines.

I looked at Malaga on 1st December and all flights around that day are exactly £132

Hopefully this will get sorted - as others have said the staff don't need this again!

Not looking good for Monarch, they are an airline with a proud history but have lost their way in recent years.. not quite sure if they are a holiday package airline, a low cost carrier or a scheduled full service airline.

I am old enough to remember their yellow painted Bristol Brittania airliners at Luton (there is one preserved at Duxford)..

I flew with them a few months back, the inflight magazine included an article about how they were looking forward to receiving their new Boeing 737’s and how the pilots were being trained to fly them.

The staff must be getting fed up with this annual farce... and I see they were still recruiting http://careers.monarch.co.uk/in-the-air ... abin-crew/

It's sad to see well known brand in trouble and likely to disappear . Also for staff esp those who have been there a long time and may lose everything including pensions

Greybull seem intent on selling - so this might need to be a necessary evil in order to sell off parts they don't want?

If wiz just want aoc can airline be sold with 1 a/c etc and the rest sold to someone else ?

Given that charter planes are being positioned in advance (as they were this time last year) I can't help but think that the ATOL protection scheme is gold plated. The ATOL scheme is to give holiday makers some comfort that if their operator goes broke, they will get home. There is a cost to this - which is borne by everyone purchasing holidays. Having planes positioning in advance from North America in advance so as that there is no delay in getting people back to the UK seems like an unnecessary expense. How much money could be saved by only marshalling resources once an operator falls over ... not in advance?