Monarch - 3
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be part of a bigger plan to get them sold off to Jet2, Ryanair or Thomson. Nobody wanted to buy them as an Airbus operator, perhaps they think they have a better chance as a Boeing operator. We all know it's not about the long term profitability of the airline that is a priority. It's a buying the airline on the cheap and trying to flip it as quickly as possible for the maximum price.
When you think of it all you'll need is the deposit for the aircraft. The mortgages will just be an ongoing business expense. Boeing will chuck free training into the bargain and there you go like Airbus did when EasyJet went Airbus.
When you think of it all you'll need is the deposit for the aircraft. The mortgages will just be an ongoing business expense. Boeing will chuck free training into the bargain and there you go like Airbus did when EasyJet went Airbus.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: ALC
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that The Telegraph article is accurate, the order for the new aircraft was confirmed 2 years ago this month.
The order for the 30 737 MAX 8s + option on additional 15 737 aircraft was confirmed in October 2014 following an announcement at the Farnborough Airshow in July 2014.
Monarch finalises order for Boeing 737 Max 8s - Monarch Blog
The order for the 30 737 MAX 8s + option on additional 15 737 aircraft was confirmed in October 2014 following an announcement at the Farnborough Airshow in July 2014.
Monarch finalises order for Boeing 737 Max 8s - Monarch Blog
Airbus needed a first major LCC to buy their planes to show that an A320 was viable for a LCC instead of the 737 being seen as the only suitable aircraft; Easyjet took advantage of Airbus' desperation. Boeing have no particular urgent need for Monarch's vote of confidence and will not give Monarch such a good deal.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In which case Monarch is providing EXTRA protection over and above what easyJet (for example) is providing for flight-only bookings.
So those asking why would you book Monarch over another carrier, this is a sound reason to do so as you would appear to have extra protection.
So those asking why would you book Monarch over another carrier, this is a sound reason to do so as you would appear to have extra protection.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Everyone is talking as if Monarch actually needs an ATOL to sell its flights. It doesn't and neither does (for example) easyJet .
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: uk
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's utter madness. Replacing a perfectly good fleet, with a fleet that does exactly the same only with requiring a vast amount of money to introduce when there's nothing wrong with the the current fleet. If the A321 is too big, switch to A320s. If the A320 is too small, spaceflex them and refit to 186Y which is only 3 seats less than the 737-800. You'll need to operate A LOT of full flights to make it worth all of the extra expense just to fly an additional three seats around.
Needless to say, replacing an aging fleet with a new fleet, comes with significant maintenance savings, I have been privileged enough to see the figures.....and NO, I wont be sharing them on a public rumour forum!!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Monarch ordered the 30 737MAX in 2014 with delieries starting in 2018 and that it went into the Boeing order book with Monarch as the Customer. They took options for a further 15 and it is possible that the confirmation date for those options is coming up (though it seems a bit early if first deliveries are say in 2020.)
The only explanation I can see for making an announcement now would be if they are putting in place a means to finance these aircraft such that the cost to Monarch before delivery will be minimal thus not a drain on their cash-flow.
The only explanation I can see for making an announcement now would be if they are putting in place a means to finance these aircraft such that the cost to Monarch before delivery will be minimal thus not a drain on their cash-flow.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would travelers care about ATOL when they don't even care about safety? I'm not getting it. Admittedly I'm not from the UK. In other parts of the world, it seems like they'd sell their soul to the devil for $0.01 off a fare.
Monarch bounces back with giant plane order
Monarch Airlines is close to unveiling a bumper fleet order of 45 new Boeing planes backed by a massive bank financing package.
The deal with a consortium of major institutions will be the biggest investment in the airline’s 48-year history and should secure the carrier’s future, ensuring that its licence to fly is fully extended.
The deal with a consortium of major institutions will be the biggest investment in the airline’s 48-year history and should secure the carrier’s future, ensuring that its licence to fly is fully extended.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding whether a UK person (or family) is willing to pay for ATOL, most probably don't know how much it is costing them unlike the insurance they pay on their car. But they know they can get a package Holiday where most if not everything is taken care of and they have confidence in the operator that they will get what they are expecting, and if anything goes wrong there will likely be an English speaking guide around to sort it out.
The alternative is to book flights, a hotel (or cruise), a hire car or day trips separately possibly having never been to the destination before and having to do much of that without knowing the local language andwith the risk that one or more of the companies involved may no longer exist when the time comes for the Holiday.
It's called "peace of mind" and has an intangible value.
The alternative is to book flights, a hotel (or cruise), a hire car or day trips separately possibly having never been to the destination before and having to do much of that without knowing the local language andwith the risk that one or more of the companies involved may no longer exist when the time comes for the Holiday.
It's called "peace of mind" and has an intangible value.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rushed Approach - In which case Monarch is providing EXTRA protection over and above what easyJet (for example) is providing for flight-only bookings.
So those asking why would you book Monarch over another carrier, this is a sound reason to do so as you would appear to have extra protection.
Which is the reason I asked about ATOL on Monarch flight only. The situation should be clarified as Monarch are in the process of issuing emails with an offer of £30 per sector.
I would like to book flights and support Monarch in the process, but not without ATOL cover.
So those asking why would you book Monarch over another carrier, this is a sound reason to do so as you would appear to have extra protection.
Which is the reason I asked about ATOL on Monarch flight only. The situation should be clarified as Monarch are in the process of issuing emails with an offer of £30 per sector.
I would like to book flights and support Monarch in the process, but not without ATOL cover.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is clear that flight-only cannot be covered ATOL.
However, it appears that a flight plus a car hire or a flight plus a hotel can. I have regularly booked an EZY flight and hired a Europcar car at the time of the initial booking apprently via the EZY website. However, as I understand, I am not buying a combined package because I am in fact dealing with EZY for the flight and Europcar for the car, albeit with a special "EZY" tarrif and apparently through the EZY website.
At first glance, it would seem the same structure might apply to Monarch but I have never tried. That is, unless maybe they have an in-house car-hire.
However, it appears that a flight plus a car hire or a flight plus a hotel can. I have regularly booked an EZY flight and hired a Europcar car at the time of the initial booking apprently via the EZY website. However, as I understand, I am not buying a combined package because I am in fact dealing with EZY for the flight and Europcar for the car, albeit with a special "EZY" tarrif and apparently through the EZY website.
At first glance, it would seem the same structure might apply to Monarch but I have never tried. That is, unless maybe they have an in-house car-hire.
I think it is clear that flight-only cannot be covered ATOL.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it's not clear at all from either the CAA or Monarch websites.
It seems that Monarch flight-only bookings made in the UK are covered by ATOL (contrary to what the CAA site above suggests about flight-only not being covered). Having checked previous flight-only bookings with Monarch, an email is simply attached to the confirmation with the requisite ATOL certificate and in the bottom right hand corner of the certificate it states "Flight-only sale". The certificate has the names of the passengers, the dates and the flights covered, the amount of money protected (i.e. the total amount paid) and the booking locator. It specifically excludes any car hire or hotel accommodation booked at the same time. The issuer is "First Aviation", ATOL number 4888.
I assume that a holiday booking may qualify for a different type of ATOL certificate that may cover other items.
It seems that Monarch flight-only bookings made in the UK are covered by ATOL (contrary to what the CAA site above suggests about flight-only not being covered). Having checked previous flight-only bookings with Monarch, an email is simply attached to the confirmation with the requisite ATOL certificate and in the bottom right hand corner of the certificate it states "Flight-only sale". The certificate has the names of the passengers, the dates and the flights covered, the amount of money protected (i.e. the total amount paid) and the booking locator. It specifically excludes any car hire or hotel accommodation booked at the same time. The issuer is "First Aviation", ATOL number 4888.
I assume that a holiday booking may qualify for a different type of ATOL certificate that may cover other items.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think it's fair to say the Naysayers are going to end up with egg on their face."
I hope we do - there seems to be an idea that people WANT Monarch to go bust - we don't - why would we?
But I've seen a load of airlines go bust in my time and every one claimed they were in fine shape until the moment they (or the CAA) announced they were dead. It's just being realistic TBH
I hope we do - there seems to be an idea that people WANT Monarch to go bust - we don't - why would we?
But I've seen a load of airlines go bust in my time and every one claimed they were in fine shape until the moment they (or the CAA) announced they were dead. It's just being realistic TBH
Anyone remember Monarch's order for 787s?
It wasn't long after they cancelled those that the 737 orders were announced at the same bleeding time new winglet A32xs were arriving. Was this a sweet deal with Boeing to avoid some kind of financial penalty? Nothing makes sense with Monarch.
It wasn't long after they cancelled those that the 737 orders were announced at the same bleeding time new winglet A32xs were arriving. Was this a sweet deal with Boeing to avoid some kind of financial penalty? Nothing makes sense with Monarch.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which bit are you having trouble making sense of?
B787 massively delayed so Boeing might want to make up for it by offering a favourable deal on a new B737 model (plus a coup to switch an EU carrier to Boeing), earlier variants (-200 and -300) which Monarch used to fly anyway in the 80s/90s (and the B757 for over three decades) so it and Monarch Group's engineering co (MAEL) are no strangers to the type and operating Boeings (MAEL is anyway a B787 GoldCare MRO).
Shortly after, ABs with winglets became available when leases were up on older aircraft so why would the airline not take advantage of the fuel saving on offer for its AB fleet in the near term, before the B737s arrive in 2018?
B787 massively delayed so Boeing might want to make up for it by offering a favourable deal on a new B737 model (plus a coup to switch an EU carrier to Boeing), earlier variants (-200 and -300) which Monarch used to fly anyway in the 80s/90s (and the B757 for over three decades) so it and Monarch Group's engineering co (MAEL) are no strangers to the type and operating Boeings (MAEL is anyway a B787 GoldCare MRO).
Shortly after, ABs with winglets became available when leases were up on older aircraft so why would the airline not take advantage of the fuel saving on offer for its AB fleet in the near term, before the B737s arrive in 2018?