Tubby,
I am just catching up with this thread, and was interested to read your simplified description of the deal with Boeing, which seems to me like a highly feasible explanation of what may have transpired.
At the end of your post, you reproduce a comment attributed to another suggesting that this was financial engineering of the highest order, and implying criticism thereof.
Can you help me to understand what exactly would be wrong with the actions of any of the parties in the scenario you describe?
I guess it would be possible to argue over how the profit should have been split between Monarch and Boeing, but 50/50 doesnt seem like a terribly unfair place to start.
In even simpler terms than you used, the High order financial engineering seems to amount to no more than a customer giving up its advantageous position on an order list for a cash payment, and then undertaking to lease aircraft from a leasing company at the going rate.
Hardly rocket science, and in the circumstances beneficial to Monarchs various creditors. The benefit of Monarchs position on the order list and their order pricing would only have been of value to them if they had been able to continue trading long enough for the aircraft to be built, which seems highly unlikely they could have done. As things stand, as a result of the financial engineering, there is £165m more in the pot than there otherwise would have been.
Boeing for their part could have stood back and let gravity take its toll, with the order slots being vacated on Monarchs demise, and a queue of potential customers happy to snap them up.
I am struggling to see a basis to criticise the motives or behaviours of any of the parties involved in the scenario you describe, or to see who has been disadvantaged.
Finally, it is worth noting that people have been selling slots on order books for donkeys years.