Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Monarch - 3

Old 21st Jan 2017, 17:18
  #4001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 5,675
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 17 Posts
After the near bankruptcy of a few months ago, I imagine the owners (Greybull) of Monarch and any lenders will want to see Monarch operating profitably (that's audited accounts profits, not just EBITDA) and with strong positive cashflow before any contractual commitment is made to taking on new long haul aircraft. I presume the CAA will want a high level of certainty that the finance stack up as well.
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 18:04
  #4002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RATCHETRING

Looking back at your post 3772.

With all due respect it was yourself who actually stated this 'rumour' regarding the return of long haul to Monarch with no source or link and now your saying,

'I don't think anyone in Monarch actually believes a word of this nonsense regarding long haul'.

Of course they don't believe it because it's not true, unless you can validate your earlier claim I will just look at it as a 'rumour' made up by yourself as I have personally asked you for a credible link or source neither of which you have supplied.

As your fairly new here I suggest your more factual next time you state information you can't back up otherwise what's the point in posting rumours.
canberra97 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 19:11
  #4003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LIVERPOOL
Age: 59
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As spotty m stated,it was an internal weekly update,no dates,no mention of type,just where the owners/bosses would like to see us in the future so no links or press releases....no one at monarch has got the budgie smugglers out of the loft or hit the gym for our beach bods yet
pabloc is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 20:03
  #4004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you Pabloc for defending "ratchetring".
It is not that they are going back into Longhaul, it is a fact that they are discussing the possibility of doing so.
As for canberra97
Mr @ Spotty M is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 20:30
  #4005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I may have missed something here but Monarch have never operated longhaul.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, let me qualify that. They have supplied aircraft to tour operators who wanted to serve longhaul markets and even their useless old inhouse tour operator Cosmos operated some longhaul services but Monarch themselves have never sold longhaul services.
Is Swaffield proposing to get back into bed with tour operators or are they belatedly going to do what they should have done 10 years ago and have a tour operator who is there supporting the airline instead of leaching off the airline a la Cosmos/Avro? Brown/Rawlinson and Mantegazza have a hell of a lot to answer for
TartinTon is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 21:13
  #4006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to add -

A few years ago flights to Orlando and Goa could be booked through the Monarch website as well as 3rd party tour ops. These were consolidation flights operated and organised by MON that had 4 plus different tour ops.

Cosmos didnt operate the flights using MON a/c. Cosmos blocked booked an allocation on the MON flights.

In the past there was whole allocation flights eg the Thomas Cook hols flights to MLE or Captains Choice RTW but even these were completely organised by MON. The only thing they didnt do was sell the seats.

Im sure IF they were to return to LH they would through Monarch Holidays with 3rd party tour ops being able to block book should they choose as like now with the SH ( saga etc ) Using the ZB prefix.

Last edited by monarch767; 21st Jan 2017 at 21:29.
monarch767 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 21:31
  #4007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pabloc

And where exactly has it been stated in these recent threads that Monarch had a recent weekly internal update with no dates, no mention of aircraft (although RATCHETRING actually stated up to 7 Long haul aircraft), no mention of type, just where the owners/bosses would like to see Monarch in the future so no links or press releases!

So where are you getting that information from?

Mr A Spotty M

'It is not that they are getting back into long haul, it is a fact that they are considering the possibility of doing so'.

Where are the facts and what gives you privy to any internal facts, if you know anymore than RATCHETRING please feel free to expand on those 'facts' otherwise it's just plane spotter gossip as far as I am concerned.

Not sure what you mean by 'as for Canberra97' and I made a point of omitting the 'hitting your head against a brick wall' because that has to be one of the most immature things to add and those who don't agree with others tend to use it.

Remember this, You are nothing special your just like everyone else on here just a mere member of an aviation forum.
canberra97 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 22:20
  #4008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PPRuNe = Professional Pilots Rumour Network.
johnnychips is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2017, 22:41
  #4009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly as I'm fully aware but rumours can sometimes substantiated, obviously not in this case.
canberra97 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 00:22
  #4010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LIVERPOOL
Age: 59
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3797 canberra (spotty m) internal communication (weekly)to all staff at monarch,it gives no date or type yes it does say that they would LIKE to see 6/7aircraft and that was all.....no one is holding their breath its like i said its where the company would LIKE to see us go,if it happens great if not ce la vie,as long as we have a job,with shiney new 737 MAX's ,thats all that most of us are concerned with at the moment....
pabloc is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 03:08
  #4011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let them start to reap the benefits of the MAX then in a few years when their in a stronger position Monarch Holidays could look at going back into holiday LH.

In the meantime there is no harm in them looking into it and putting a case together for its return.

I wish them all the best.
monarch767 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2017, 18:55
  #4012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: BHX
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@canberra 97 , What ratchet ring stated was fact .....A MON staff member showed me the E mail in question .
Brigantee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 04:39
  #4013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well if it was in 'internal communication' it should have stayed there, it's against most company policies for 'internal communications' to be announced to the public unless it was done so by the appropriate departments, otherwise a its a disciplinary or at worst a sackable offence.
canberra97 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 09:39
  #4014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've been following this latest 'revelation' with interest, and have been thinking exactly the same thing.

It's bad enough telling someone outside the company, but for that person to them go and join a forum especially to tell others.................

If a friend of mine did that they wouldn't be a friend any more!
janeyTA is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 10:21
  #4015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 5,675
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 17 Posts
In an era when social media is all pervasive it is naive to expect internal emails won't eventually leak onto publicly viewable parts of the Internet. As a social species, humans love to talk to each other about things- we just can't resist blabbing.

Very unfortunate certainly, but naive.
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 10:41
  #4016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The idea that any "internal communication" will remain as such in the modern era is laughable and everyone (including those writing them) knows that.

Many companies use "internal memos" as a way of getting news out there without officially releasing it, as it always appears to be a more trusted source than were it to be released directly.

No idea if that was the case here, but the thing I often look for is who would news like that be aimed at? What is the real reason for making statements like that?

There's always a game going on somewhere and statements like this are just part of it.

Will Monarch get 787's? No idea, but it's a risky strategy committing to aircraft that are that expensive, especially when they're already in the process of bringing one new type in.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 13:18
  #4017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: BHX
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cannbera97 ,What planet are you on ? Do you honestly think MON would have released that statement to staff expecting no one to mention the fact they may be returning to long haul to anyone outside the company ??
If a return was a senstive issue the company would have kept very quiet it until something was in concrete .



Get real ffs.
Brigantee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 13:47
  #4018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps it should have been kept quiet as I am certain the internal memo/email was as it states an internal memo/email, a company such as Monarch would only want that sort of information in the domain of the public if they the company made an official press release.

I will give you an example

I work for one of the major cruise lines and a few years ago a surprise announcement was to be made to the public concerning the deployment of a particular vessel to the UK cruise market, I at that time I was on a similar site to this but for the cruise industry and one of my team had posted the information online. It didn't take long to find the culprit as he was openly discussing it online and with others, regardless of the fact there was going to be forthcoming press release the person involved was instantly reprimanded and subsequently demoted due to gross misconduct.

That's why I find this whole saga involving members of staff discussing particular internal memos or emails of there company to the public as posting them on PPRUNE. This may be a rumour site but it doesn't give a green light to those wanting to discuss what should be pvt internal emails.
canberra97 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 13:53
  #4019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: BHX
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As said if it was a sensitive issue the company would not have disclosed that news to hundreds of staff hoping no one would mention what is on the face of it good posotive news to anyone outside the company

They knew full well the story would leak out and that was im sure intended .
Brigantee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2017, 14:13
  #4020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Also never forget that an internal only memo is deniable in the future, whereas were you to make a press statement that something is to happen that then doesn't is something you'll be challenged on.

An internal e-mail sent to a small and trusted group of employees getting leaked is a problem.
An internal e-mail sent to all staff that then gets leaked is a very different thing.
Say again s l o w l y is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.