Thomas Cook-2

[daz211]

It won’t be long before Stansted will be in great demand airlines should be looking at the very near future and grab the slots that are available, Stansted longhaul will work with an established airline, Stansted is busy enough to fill seats to any destinations a airline wishes to add be it long or short haul.

It wasn’t that long ago we were all shocked by Jet2 announcing a base at Stansted which has grown faster than even Jet2 itself thought possible.

Stansted has just started it major redevelopment and expansion, trust me, New Airlines will be coming to Stansted so why not get in there first and get the best deals and the best slots.

But my point is why pay for LGW slots when you can save a great deal of money at STN and still fill flights, There are 1000s of people each week that are forced to drive past Stansted to get catch a longhaul flight, if Primera could fill Aircraft then Thomas Cook would have no trouble in doing the same.

As far as Thomas Cook hotels are concerned, I would sell them along with the shops, lets just get back to basics get the company back into profit and sell seats on aircraft to popular longhaul/mediumhaul destinations.

I like millions of others find the best airline to my destination and book my hotel through a booking site it always works out cheaper, Thomas Cook need to realise it’s older customers are getting to old to travel and the prospect of new customers booking the same way their grandparents booked holidays is just not convenient not cost affective.

MAJOR improvements to social media platforms need to be a top priority. A new younger image needs to be prompted or Thomas Cook are doomed.

[southside bobby]

At circa 28m pax per year just at present & dynamic plans I totally agree with the comments regarding STN posted above.

STN is approaching critical mass & as stated can virtually fill any seat with any airline to any destination.

[Flightrider]

I go back to my central point. Airlines are not in the habit of ditching routes/activity that is profitable. If TC have ditched STN then it almost certainly tells you something (and they still fly long-haul from LGW inc Cape Town in winters, so it can't be all about consolidating at MAN). The rush to paint long-haul ops at STN as the saviour of TC is just crazy. They have pulled out - gone - retrenched - whatever you want to call it. They have clearly made a business decision to do so despite whatever wonderful offers were on the table from MAG at Stansted. They had the best slots and have given them back. They - like any other airline - wouldn't have done that if those operations were profitable. And just because loads were good does not automatically mean that the routes were profitable.

[daz211]

Originally Posted by Flightrider

I go back to my central point. Airlines are not in the habit of ditching routes/activity that is profitable. If TC have ditched STN then it almost certainly tells you something (and they still fly long-haul from LGW inc Cape Town in winters, so it can't be all about consolidating at MAN). The rush to paint long-haul ops at STN as the saviour of TC is just crazy. They have pulled out - gone - retrenched - whatever you want to call it. They have clearly made a business decision to do so despite whatever wonderful offers were on the table from MAG at Stansted. They had the best slots and have given them back. They - like any other airline - wouldn't have done that if those operations were profitable. And just because loads were good does not automatically mean that the routes were profitable.

Please don’t talk to me about Business decisions made by Thomas Cook. It is clear that they have not made good ones in the last few years or we would not be having this discussion.
As far as Thomas Cook longhaul at Stansted is concerned the loads were very healthy a operational decision was made to concentrate on expanding longhaul at Manchester not to the likes of MCO and LAS but to main cities in the USA.

What I am suggesting is a move from Gatwick to Stansted with a mirrored image of Manchester operations. Doing this would save a lot of money on slots and a lot of money in a joint deal with both MAG owned airports, it’s not rocket science or brain surgery it’s simple economics for an airline that is stuck in the past and need a strong plan of action and soon.

And for the record I’m no spotter, I have worked in this industry for 25yrs and I have had key says in major operational decisions. it’s not about wishing and hoping my Airport wins over your Airport or my Airline is the best.
this is about saving an airline In troubled times.

[SWBKCB]

Nobody has convincingly answered Flightriders central point - why did TCX pull out of STN? Some of the other comments seem confusing - should they be copying Jet2 who are moving into packages or getting out of packages cos the market is going DIY?

As this is the TCX thread I'll not go into the general STN points, but I hope SSB isn't tempting fate!

[toledoashley]

They should be offering packages to their own hotels, but not necessarily on their own airline. So easier to facilitate flexible durations etc.
Keep the airline for destinations which LCC hasn’t reached or have a high volume - Turkey, Egypt, Gambia, Cape Verde - plus long haul.

[Cazza_fly]

Originally Posted by toledoashley

They should be offering packages to their own hotels, but not necessarily on their own airline. So easier to facilitate flexible durations etc.
Keep the airline for destinations which LCC hasn’t reached or have a high volume - Turkey, Egypt, Gambia, Cape Verde - plus long haul.

To be fair thats what they do aim to do and have done historically. Mainly using seats on EZY and in the past MON to cover most of spain and some of their Greek destinations. However, with a huge reduction in demand to Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and The Gambia - all for obvious reasons over the past couple if years or so - it has of course made sense to redeploy their own metal on to some of these shorter routes.

A320 wet-leases aside, Thomas Cook Airlines UK have now managed to streamline their fleet down to two types; A321 and A330. This will obviously make a lot of operational sense. More so when politically in the countries they previously had their niche in can build back up their trust in the UK holiday market.

[southside bobby]

Not too concerned about tempting fate!...

Scenario is pretty much as stated & perceived.

Best put it to MAG as they have about £3Billion quid in it (STN) & must know more than us surely.

Re the thinking that Flightrider`s central point has not been answered convincingly...I think it actually has.

After all the personal assumption(s) from Flightrider are just that.

[Buster the Bear]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Nobody has convincingly answered Flightriders central point - why did TCX pull out of STN? Some of the other comments seem confusing - should they be copying Jet2 who are moving into packages or getting out of packages cos the market is going DIY?

As this is the TCX thread I'll not go into the general STN points, but I hope SSB isn't tempting fate!

Either the subsidies have been exhausted, or the yields were terrible. If their operation out of Stansted made a good profit, they would stay.

[southside bobby]

…& semantics then as possibly a BETTER profit elsewhere & considering perhaps the limited resources available & the requirement to bolster the main long haul base.

[AirportPlanner1]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Nobody has convincingly answered Flightriders central point - why did TCX pull out of STN?

Be careful - TCX have not pulled out of STN, it is the long-haul routes that have been dropped.

Most points have been covered for those wishing to read objectively but the point that’s not been highlighted is that STN long-haul never had a permanent aircraft. Services ran in May half term, 6-7 weeks in Jul/Aug and October half term. This meant shuttling A330s and crews down from MAN/Scotland/Scandinavia etc, and the origin of the A330s not having continuous service either. Therefore when you have finite resource it makes sense to focus that resource on a priority market.

I would argue though, as others are suggesting, that STN represents a better option for TCX longhaul to focus than LGW. It is effectively an open goal. At LGW they are up against competition on virtually all routes. Want to go to Orlando? Pick from BA/Virgin/Norwegian/TUI/TCX. From north of London? Nothing. It’s a market they could really exploit.

[daz211]

Airportplanner1-
I totally agree and from my posts, some think I’m personally wishing TCX to move to STN for my own happiness, As I have stated, Stansted is a perfect place to move to, No competition what so ever, cheaper fee’s, Better deals under MAG, passengers driving past to fly other longhaul airlines from LGW and LHR, The perfect self connecting flights to Europe, In fact I believe Stansted is still the No1 airport in the UK for European destinations.

It would make much more economical business sense to have STN and MAN operating identical destinations side by sides.

I don’t for one minute think TCX will have the gumption or forward thinking to follow such a cost cutting plan but let’s see what they do to solve the current problems. Who wants to make a bet they will announce no changes other than close a few high street shops and this time next year, if they are still around we can have this conversation all over again.

Oh and on the reason why TCX stopped STN Longhaul, This was down to operational needs not lack of bums on seats.

[Flightrider]

Oh and on the reason why TCX stopped STN Longhaul, This was down to operational needs not lack of bums on seats.

Do you have some factual back-up to support that statement or could you equally well be accused of conjecture as I have been for the statements I've made?

I'll try to keep this factual - but if you have the experience base you suggest, then you should surely know that there is no cost to continuing to operate slots to which you hold grandfather rights, as TC have for their Gatwick services. Their LGW slot portfolio is long established, and built through Caledonian, Flying Colours, Airworld, JMC and a long lineage. They do not need to pay for LGW slots - provided they meet the criteria in the EU slot regulation, then they are granted them in perpetuity. There is no cash cost of those slots, so your point of being able to save money on slots by moving from existing, long-term slots they hold at LGW is inaccurate.

I'll repeat: airlines are not in the business of pulling profitable routes. If there were operational reasons - e.g. positioning crews, empty legs with aircraft to fly the STN programme - then those would ultimately become cost reasons. If your income from ticket sales (no matter how many) then doesn't cover your costs including those type of aspects, the route/s are unprofitable and you stop. It is quite possible that someone else with a different business model could make those same routes profitable, and I am not one of the subscribers to the view that any and all long-haul at STN is doomed to fail - Emirates appear to be sufficient proof of that at an early stage to suggest otherwise. But for TC, it's a non-starter. We can keep going round and round this debate, but the indisputable fact is that they've pulled the operation completely. If it was as marvellous as is being suggested, there must be something incredibly badly wrong in the airline's decision making. The reported figures suggest the airline is doing fine and the issues are in the tour operator and retail aspects. That leads to a conclusion that the airline's decision making can't be all that bad.

[AirportPlanner1]

To be fair fliterider I’d go for Daz’s conjecture over yours because he has demonstrated understanding of nuance whereas you said straight up the operation was a disaster which was clearly rubbish.

You’re also still missing the point, Caledonian and the like are decades old now. The market has moved on. TCX are perfectly at liberty to stay at LGW, clearly they are doing OK but objectively I would say it’s a crowded market and STN offers an opportunity to differentiate and potentially grow the business.

[Flightrider]

My point around Caledonian and the others wasn't anything to do with TC's market presence in today's market - it was about their grandfather Gatwick rights to runway slots, so there is no cost to them holding those slots, contrary to Daz's statement. I don't disagree with your statement at all, but that wasn't what I was saying.

[goldeneye]

When TCX started STN long haul TUI/Thomson announced their own long haul ops either the same summer or the following. Article below mentions Thomson as it was launching two of the same destinations as TCX (Orlando and Cancun) which really cannot gave helped TCX revenue.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...tes-go-on-sale

[daz211]

Originally Posted by Flightrider

My point around Caledonian and the others wasn't anything to do with TC's market presence in today's market - it was about their grandfather Gatwick rights to runway slots, so there is no cost to them holding those slots, contrary to Daz's statement. I don't disagree with your statement at all, but that wasn't what I was saying.

Your right of course there is no cost to holding a slot, TCX shouldn’t be thinking what don’t we pay for, they need to think what’s worth money and how do we get it fast. Now let’s see what assets do TCX have at LGW that could be sold ?

The point is that your missing - Thomas Cook can’t continue how they are now, we get to autumn/winter for the past few years and we find ourselves having the same conversations time and time again.

IMHO, A total remodel of the airline is needed or we can just sit back and wait for the inevitable whilst pretending all is fine in camp.

[brian_dromey]

Originally Posted by daz211

IMHO, A total remodel of the airline is needed or we can just sit back and wait for the inevitable whilst pretending all is fine in camp.

Thomas Cook is more than an airline. In fact the airlines are almost a side business. Thomas Cook's main focus has been selling Package Holidays on the High St. That is what their core market is. TCX (et al) is a necessary vehicle to get Thomas Cook customers to holiday destinations. It may well be that "binning" the shops, busses, resort representatives and all the rest is a good way to remove cost, but it will also impact on revenue. It is exactly the opposite strategy of Jet2, who have an incredibly tightly controlled product. Admittedly they don't have high st street shops, but they self-handle at a lot of UK and destination airports, have high resort representation, branded busses, at-hotel check-in, maintenance. In short they have done exactly thew opposite of what you advocate for Thomas Cook. Jet2 have shown that with the right product a package can work in 2018 and not just to silver surfers.

[AirportPlanner1]

Logic to me would have said the High Street model is dead and Thomas Cook need to get out of their own units which surely have massive overheads and perhaps move into concessions within Tesco, Sainsbury’s etc. However, where I live they recently moved into a new branch as well as maintaining a second site. I’ve also seen a new branch not so far from here. So perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to write off the model.

With retail rents becoming more depressed, perhaps in future Jet2 might themselves see opportunities for a High Street presence.

[daz211]

Originally Posted by AirportPlanner1

Logic to me would have said the High Street model is dead and Thomas Cook need to get out of their own units which surely have massive overheads and perhaps move into concessions within Tesco, Sainsbury’s etc. However, where I live they recently moved into a new branch as well as maintaining a second site. I’ve also seen a new branch not so far from here. So perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to write off the model.

With retail rents becoming more depressed, perhaps in future Jet2 might themselves see opportunities for a High Street presence.

First off, Jet2 will never have a high street shop or shops, their social media presence is light years ahead of all others and is working very well. You state that Thomas Cook have two shops where you live, there lies the problem, who needs shops when you can have a brilliant convenient website or sites where the customer does the work of a staff member.

Can I just ask, has anyone else got any ideas on how Thomas Cook should go forward.