Monarch 4
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Order of payment in insolvency... you forgot the Insolvency Practitioner :-) Definitely don't forget him!
One way to remember the order is Liquidators Suck(Secured) Payment(Preferential) From(Floating) the Unsuspecting(Unsecured)s Sneakily(Shareholders).
(I know this isn't technically the legal order of payment; S is supposed to come before L. But L won't accept the appointment unless S agreed they come first...)
HMRC arent that special any more. A little bit of their claim will come under preferrential as they stand in place of the employees whose claims they will partially pay out the National Insurance Fund. Otherwise they are unsecured.
One way to remember the order is Liquidators Suck(Secured) Payment(Preferential) From(Floating) the Unsuspecting(Unsecured)s Sneakily(Shareholders).
(I know this isn't technically the legal order of payment; S is supposed to come before L. But L won't accept the appointment unless S agreed they come first...)
HMRC arent that special any more. A little bit of their claim will come under preferrential as they stand in place of the employees whose claims they will partially pay out the National Insurance Fund. Otherwise they are unsecured.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So whats happening to the Engineering? -That would be the chaps who took a pay cut and increased hours and pension losses to keep the airline going , this after decades of subsidising the airline , to the detriment of their own profits .
I guess they carry on, looking to replace the Monarch fleet work with third party work , being told the future will be awesome ...right up to the point Greybull sell them -
I guess they carry on, looking to replace the Monarch fleet work with third party work , being told the future will be awesome ...right up to the point Greybull sell them -
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any travel agent who sells both the flight and the accommodation will have paid ATOL.
People who flew into the UK might be protected by a similar scheme set up in their own country (or rather, where they purchased the tickets): they ought to be if they purchased in the EU.
People who flew into the UK might be protected by a similar scheme set up in their own country (or rather, where they purchased the tickets): they ought to be if they purchased in the EU.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Monarch sold a flight as part of a package, the Airline failure protection insurance will be covered by Monarch's bonded ATOL membership.
If Monarch sold a flight-only to the punter it will not be covered by Monarch's ATOL membership. If we are to be believed this is 90-95% of their flights.
BUT ... as Musician has said, the flight-only as sold by Monarch will probably have been sold through another operator with ATOL membership such as most UK Online Travel Agents (OTAs). I doubt many people are flying Monarch without the need for other products.
Provided a flight is sold with an accommodation or car hire booking by an ATOL member, it becomes a Flight-Plus booking (sometimes called a dynamic package). This will also benefit from ATOL airline failure protection insurance when bought through an ATOL member. At the OTA currently benefiting
from my services, of monarch bookings travelling the week before the administration, 99.9% were covered as flight-plus.
The 90-95% figure being banded around as "not covered by ATOL" is incorrect.
If Monarch sold a flight-only to the punter it will not be covered by Monarch's ATOL membership. If we are to be believed this is 90-95% of their flights.
BUT ... as Musician has said, the flight-only as sold by Monarch will probably have been sold through another operator with ATOL membership such as most UK Online Travel Agents (OTAs). I doubt many people are flying Monarch without the need for other products.
Provided a flight is sold with an accommodation or car hire booking by an ATOL member, it becomes a Flight-Plus booking (sometimes called a dynamic package). This will also benefit from ATOL airline failure protection insurance when bought through an ATOL member. At the OTA currently benefiting
from my services, of monarch bookings travelling the week before the administration, 99.9% were covered as flight-plus.The 90-95% figure being banded around as "not covered by ATOL" is incorrect.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight...
When ATOL membership is applied for/renewed it provides a handy health-check on the financial health of the organisation. I've no idea if that health-check is over-zealous.
As part of the shenanigans around Monarch's renewal it seems it was not passing the health-check. The action of failing to renew the membership would itself be a fatal financial blow to the company in terms of lost future bookings. Maybe that was justified I don't know.
But despite all the publicity and common sense, a small minoritybooked without having ATOL airline failure protection insurance for their flight. HM Gov decided to repatriate them anyway on the basis they would try to hit the insurance and/or card companies for the cost.
So the airline failed because it couldn't renew its membership of an insurance scheme that the government then said "ah don't worry about that".
Should Mr & Mrs Holidaymaker from Huddersfield be left high and dry because they didn't have insurance. Erm.. yes, that's how insurance works. If not, surely the rest of us who have paid the premiums in our flight prices have been missold the need for the policy and should have the charges refunded? (No, I don't really think that's going to happen
)
When ATOL membership is applied for/renewed it provides a handy health-check on the financial health of the organisation. I've no idea if that health-check is over-zealous.
As part of the shenanigans around Monarch's renewal it seems it was not passing the health-check. The action of failing to renew the membership would itself be a fatal financial blow to the company in terms of lost future bookings. Maybe that was justified I don't know.
But despite all the publicity and common sense, a small minoritybooked without having ATOL airline failure protection insurance for their flight. HM Gov decided to repatriate them anyway on the basis they would try to hit the insurance and/or card companies for the cost.
So the airline failed because it couldn't renew its membership of an insurance scheme that the government then said "ah don't worry about that".
Should Mr & Mrs Holidaymaker from Huddersfield be left high and dry because they didn't have insurance. Erm.. yes, that's how insurance works. If not, surely the rest of us who have paid the premiums in our flight prices have been missold the need for the policy and should have the charges refunded? (No, I don't really think that's going to happen
)
Last edited by Kolossi; 7th Oct 2017 at 11:34. Reason: minor typo corrected
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, payouts are capped at not much more than minimum wage, and the number of weeks you can claim for is limited, and then they take tax and NI off the payout too.
Employees are also preferential creditors in respect of wages owing - sounds good until you realise that bit is capped again at a low level, so you are a preferential creditor for a small part of wages owing.
Basically if you are on minimum wage, you'll get your money from the govt, if you are on more you'll get a little bit more money than if you were on minimum wage. The rest you have to fight the administrators for, it's not difficult for the amount lost to be in five figures, and it quite probably will be for pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the time you factor in those covered by non-monarch ATOL, recovery from credit card cos, debit card charge chargeback scheme and travel insurance with SAFI cover, it may well be such a small minority with no cover that it isn't worth the admin cost to sift them out.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have a friend and former colleague who has retired and lives in Malaga, we both chose to fly Monarch when visiting each other with families. Same route same airline MAN-AGP or vice versa!
If I had been stranded in Malaga I would be repatriated. If he had been stranded in Manchester he would be abandoned to his own rescue. We both hold U.K. Passports same airline same terms and conditions. WHY? Lots of empty aircraft flying one way.
Can someone please explain this bizarre situation, likewise the denizens of Gibralter dumped here without any help, support or even advice?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see you have an interest in the ongoing security of MAEL as do I. If we follow the figures quoted in the media, Greybull stand to lose around £200M following their venture into aviation. I believe it is inevitable that they will seek to recoup as much of the money spent as possible, so imagine MAEL will be open to offers.
As far as someone with a stable long term goal, that may be harder to find, as the diversity of MAEL's business with Line Stations in BHX, LGW, Nice, Malaga, Kiev, Warsaw, Man, EDI is a right mixture. So whilst the Hangar and stations in WAW/LGW/EDI are pretty much gold care centric, the others are a bit of a hotch botch in that they look after many varying customers.
It could spell the change of the MAEL network with the stations or bases being divided even more, merely by those that are gold care stations and those that aren't.
Failing that, the UK stations that came from Jersey stations could end up back in those colours. I still have my old uniform somewhere I think
As far as someone with a stable long term goal, that may be harder to find, as the diversity of MAEL's business with Line Stations in BHX, LGW, Nice, Malaga, Kiev, Warsaw, Man, EDI is a right mixture. So whilst the Hangar and stations in WAW/LGW/EDI are pretty much gold care centric, the others are a bit of a hotch botch in that they look after many varying customers.
It could spell the change of the MAEL network with the stations or bases being divided even more, merely by those that are gold care stations and those that aren't.
Failing that, the UK stations that came from Jersey stations could end up back in those colours. I still have my old uniform somewhere I think
Reported on the Fly Be thread few weeks back that they are to take back all hangar maintenance in house and stop using MAEL.
Is that the case as they must provide 30% of MAEL work(Three BE planes a day/night go through it ).With the loss of Monarch..probably 40% That would be a huge amount of extra work to find after the 17 Virgin and Norwegian 787s go through it at BHX this autumn/winter.
The idea is to get you home not get you off on holiday and back... why would they pay for you to fly out?
makes no sense
makes no sense
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add insult to already a massive kick in the nuts I'm being told my years service from when I was 21-22 is worth half the amount had I been over 22 so my payout is double capped.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight...
When ATOL membership is applied for/renewed it provides a handy health-check on the financial health of the organisation. I've no idea if that health-check is over-zealous.
As part of the shenanigans around Monarch's renewal it seems it was not passing the health-check. The action of failing to renew the membership would itself be a fatal financial blow to the company in terms of lost future bookings. Maybe that was justified I don't know.
But despite all the publicity and common sense, a small minoritybooked without having ATOL airline failure protection insurance for their flight.
When ATOL membership is applied for/renewed it provides a handy health-check on the financial health of the organisation. I've no idea if that health-check is over-zealous.
As part of the shenanigans around Monarch's renewal it seems it was not passing the health-check. The action of failing to renew the membership would itself be a fatal financial blow to the company in terms of lost future bookings. Maybe that was justified I don't know.
But despite all the publicity and common sense, a small minoritybooked without having ATOL airline failure protection insurance for their flight.
HM Gov decided to repatriate them anyway on the basis they would try to hit the insurance card companies for the cost.
I think you mean credit card.
And if the government doesn't, the consumer will. Hence the CAA asking people to sign forms allowing them to act om their behalf.
(That's because of a quirk of the consumer credit act, which says if you are sold a loan to buy a product, then you shouldn't have to repay the loan if you don't get delivered the product. Originally designed to protect consumers from bad hire-purchase agreements, it inadvertantly caught credit card companies too.)
Since it only covers credit and not debit cards, if the CAA didn't step in you'd find some consumers ******, some covered by ATOL, and some able to claim from their credit card company. Consumers - likely as ill informed as you - may find this fairly arbitrary; it seems completely laudable therefore for the government/CAA to step in and say "we'll get you home and deal with the mess." Surprisingly laudable.
So the airline failed because it couldn't renew its membership of an insurance scheme that the government then said "ah don't worry about that".
Should Mr & Mrs Holidaymaker from Huddersfield be left high and dry because they didn't have insurance. Erm.. yes, that's how insurance works. If not, surely the rest of us who have paid the premiums in our flight prices have been missold the need for the policy and should have the charges refunded? (No, I don't really think that's going to happen
)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say: just saw that Easyjet is also aiming the ex monarch guys to apply. What about other people with experience? Are they not good enough? They can not apply!! This discrimination makes me puke, just because a beloved company went into administration.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Gatters
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the same in 'other' transport industries.
The union exec will quickly put the word in to ask company exec to help out. This is a good thing, as long as it means only the worthy get a job (we all know some!). It really helps compay and union relations.
It obviously also benefits the company to take on well trained, good attitude people.
The union exec will quickly put the word in to ask company exec to help out. This is a good thing, as long as it means only the worthy get a job (we all know some!). It really helps compay and union relations.
It obviously also benefits the company to take on well trained, good attitude people.