Monarch - 3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland ... oh wait: Swaziland
Posts: 575
Something's fishy here IMHO. Why on earth did they wait until the very last minute damaging their own brand? I think there was a takeover offer (Chinese or other) which was withdrawn eventually hence the "investment" of Greybull to keep the show going on.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Half understand the protections of CC, paypall, and indeed ATOL, but if you've got the choice to book with an EZY vs Monarch, why would you bother with Monarch unless it's a lot cheaper?
Greybull know Monarch inside out, so the only reason I can think of that they didn't do this 3 weeks ago was because they were far from convinced.
Greybull know Monarch inside out, so the only reason I can think of that they didn't do this 3 weeks ago was because they were far from convinced.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
The only reason why things will be selling well will be due to deep discounting.
Monarch still have to survive the winter. Their costs have increased due to them all in the £ and it's been said that last year the profit made was only due to the fall in the price of fuel. Now if the price of oil actually goes up it could be a double whammy and it could still end in tears.
If anything it gives the good hard working people there a bit of time to look elsewhere for a job. TCX and EZY are recruiting as are BA and VS just closed. If I was there I wouldn't be seeing this as a my future being secured.
Monarch still have to survive the winter. Their costs have increased due to them all in the £ and it's been said that last year the profit made was only due to the fall in the price of fuel. Now if the price of oil actually goes up it could be a double whammy and it could still end in tears.
If anything it gives the good hard working people there a bit of time to look elsewhere for a job. TCX and EZY are recruiting as are BA and VS just closed. If I was there I wouldn't be seeing this as a my future being secured.
Last edited by HeartyMeatballs; 13th Oct 2016 at 07:41.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
agree - it's been a shambolic 3 weeks for them, factual information that can be relied upon is non-existent, and they'll be getting sold down the line anyway.
If you're a decent employee, you'd surely take destiny into your own hands, rather than be dictated to this by crowd.
If you're a decent employee, you'd surely take destiny into your own hands, rather than be dictated to this by crowd.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
I most certainly would. And for anyone there who thinks they'll be bought up and simply absorbed into someone else then I'd be extremely surprised if it happened. It would be a lot cheaper for a competitor to let it implode and pick up the pieces (including people on 'refreshed' Ts and Cs). The Boeing noose, the overcapacity in the market, Brexit, terrorism, potential recession, tension with Russia. Now really isn't the time for any airline to increase its fleet size by 50 overnight. Now really isn't the time for refleeting neither.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Lower prices will stimulate demand. However lower prices, higher costs.......
And as far as Joe Public knows, last week monarch 'nearly went bust', now they're highlighting the fact that they're selling flights on the cheap. It could look like desperation to some.
And as far as Joe Public knows, last week monarch 'nearly went bust', now they're highlighting the fact that they're selling flights on the cheap. It could look like desperation to some.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Waldo1
Seems monarch are more interested in the whole buying loads of new planes instead of sticking with what they have and concentrating in sorting out the business....
Replacing the fleet with 737 Max will reduce the company's operating costs by 24%. It's not hard to see why they want to go down that route.
Some believe re-fleeting with Airbus products would be simpler, I believe they made the correct choice.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 801
Replacing the fleet with 737 Max will reduce the company's operating costs by 24%
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by KelvinD
Now that's interesting. If correct, how is Airbus selling any A320 series aircraft all? Surely this says that all airlines can slash their operating costs by significant amounts simply by swapping their fleets for 737?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 740
Replacing the fleet with 737 Max will reduce the company's operating costs by 24%. It's not hard to see why they want to go down that route.
The saving calculations are based on the existing fleet, not a fleet of new Airbus products.
But again I think this is highly imaginative accounting on Monarch's part, in the press releases where this figure is mentioned...
Monarch are only going to be receiving 6-8 aircraft a year, so will take nearly 4 years for the transition to take place from Airbus to Boeing. In this time they will be running a dual fleet, they have to pay for crew and ground staff to be converted, and equipment at bases to be changed too.
I highly doubt this 24% saving will be achievable until the Airbus fleet has been fully disposed of.
While these new aircraft will extremely fuel efficient, this comes at the cost of very high prices to purchase the aircraft and/or lease. This is where low cost carriers like Allegiant and Jet2 have decided to operate older/cheaper aircraft and the cheaper running costs out weigh the fuel savings of newer aircraft. Hence why Jet2 have ordered the previous generation 737-800's and not the max version.
While the A320/1 family Monarch operate, varied with different ages and slightly different spes, this is common for many airlines, where additional aircraft of the same type is acquired over the years.... As long as they have the same engine type and basic specifications they are more or less flying a uniform fleet.
An order for new aircraft, for a struggling airline is the last thing they need and should be trying to make do with what they have for the next few years, until they are out of the woods. But I suspect this order is too far advance and the noose around the airlines neck, hence the struggle to find a new investor or buyer.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: BHX
Posts: 305
Good news all round , I think behind all the new money being injected there maybe is a new investor waiting in the wings
HNA group seemed very interested three months ago maybe they still are ?
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...-monarch-stake
HNA group seemed very interested three months ago maybe they still are ?
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...-monarch-stake
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 67
While I am relieved and pleased that Monarch appear to have lived to fly another day (and hopefully much longer), it wont have escaped anybody's attention that they required a bailout when Greybull took them over, and now they have required another, even larger, cash injection. This is despite pulling in their horns and drastically cutting terms and conditions etc.
No saviour appears to be waiting offstage, so unless we have been missing something all along, how do they propose to escape from their cash-flow doldrums and generate real (as opposed to operating) profits? What has really changed, apart from an ever tougher market with Brexit, problematic exchange rates, rising oil prices and very low demand for Turkey and North Africa. A Cunning Plan is required. Answers on a postcard - - -
No saviour appears to be waiting offstage, so unless we have been missing something all along, how do they propose to escape from their cash-flow doldrums and generate real (as opposed to operating) profits? What has really changed, apart from an ever tougher market with Brexit, problematic exchange rates, rising oil prices and very low demand for Turkey and North Africa. A Cunning Plan is required. Answers on a postcard - - -
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Retrosgone
Very well put, I don't think anything has changed and certainly not for the better, with the exchange close to parity, certainly at travel shop exchange rates, anyone heavily dependant on UK business like Monarch,Jet2 and also easyJet are going to find it a tough market in 2017, whilst Jet2 will likely see an improvement to their all inclusive Jet2holidays, Monarch have repositioned themselves as a point to point low ( but not low enough) cost airline, this winter will be brutal for them, Ryanair & Norwegian have a much larger exposure to the European city market and that will grow because it's never been cheaper to visit and spend in the UK but Monarch don't have the brand awareness outside of the UK.
It reads very much like a sell and lease back deal on these 737's in much the way that Sir Michael Bishop did with the bmi group where aircraft were owned by an inhouse ( in Bishopshouse) leasing company and leased to the airline at high lease rates, transferring profit from the airline to the finance house, all well and good and many companies do similar things, but it doesn't help the cost base in a cut throat market up against the big boys
Anyway at least they get to live another year
Very well put, I don't think anything has changed and certainly not for the better, with the exchange close to parity, certainly at travel shop exchange rates, anyone heavily dependant on UK business like Monarch,Jet2 and also easyJet are going to find it a tough market in 2017, whilst Jet2 will likely see an improvement to their all inclusive Jet2holidays, Monarch have repositioned themselves as a point to point low ( but not low enough) cost airline, this winter will be brutal for them, Ryanair & Norwegian have a much larger exposure to the European city market and that will grow because it's never been cheaper to visit and spend in the UK but Monarch don't have the brand awareness outside of the UK.
It reads very much like a sell and lease back deal on these 737's in much the way that Sir Michael Bishop did with the bmi group where aircraft were owned by an inhouse ( in Bishopshouse) leasing company and leased to the airline at high lease rates, transferring profit from the airline to the finance house, all well and good and many companies do similar things, but it doesn't help the cost base in a cut throat market up against the big boys
Anyway at least they get to live another year
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,999
Originally Posted by FANS
Given the farce of the last 3 weeks, unless they're dirt cheap, why have anything to do with Monarch?
Did the caa or monarch ever formally confirm or deny that those ghost flights related to Monarch?
Did the caa or monarch ever formally confirm or deny that those ghost flights related to Monarch?
First, pricing is going to be keen, to recover lost ground as a result of this PR debacle. Second, they have a good reputation; you're less likely to have your flight timings radically changed than with some larger operators. Finally, unlike most airlines, you're covered with an ATOL - so if the worst were to happen you'd get repatriated.
From the general tenor of your posts on both threads on PPRuNe it appears to me you'll stop at nothing to try and help this airline and the 2800-odd jobs that it supports directly out of business.
I just ask myself why.
