Monarch 2
Monarch 1 took a row of seats out of the A320s (down to 174) and the A321s (down to 214) to provide six rows with extra legroom at the front of the cabin, on the logic that the premium from 36 extra legroom seats would exceed the marginal revenue from the last six seats on the 80% of flights on which they were sold. Delightful though it was on the few occasions when I used it, it ultimately didn't work and they put the seats back in to a high density config again. The premium leisure market might have changed since that experiment, but it would be a bold effort to try that again - just as you don't see American rushing to repeat MRTC (More Room Through Coach) on the widebodies of the same era.
Beyond possibly Gibraltar - which can't keep a fleet of 15 x A320s occupied - I'm struggling to see where any market gap is here. Go into the smaller regionals where there is no Jet2 from the likes of PMI, ALC etc? Spread very thinly and it's a tough way to make a living - I know Monarch 1 looked at that and dismissed it fairly quickly as a tough gig, after they'd flown Blackpool, Aberdeen and others besides. Try to "own" a new destination like Gazipasa/Alanya whch is widely served from Europe but not flown from the UK? Probably won't have it ti yourself for very long. With easyJet piling capacity into the holiday market through a total inability to think creatively in that airline, the likes of Egypt and Tunisia have more than enough capacity.
Ultimately if a new start-up meets the licensing criteria including providing evidence of sufficient backing to meet its business plan, the CAA can't refuse to give it a licence even if they think it's bonkers. [Silverjet being a case in point.] You therefore can't say this will never start - it might. But the odds are firmly stacked against it having any longevity, in my view.
Beyond possibly Gibraltar - which can't keep a fleet of 15 x A320s occupied - I'm struggling to see where any market gap is here. Go into the smaller regionals where there is no Jet2 from the likes of PMI, ALC etc? Spread very thinly and it's a tough way to make a living - I know Monarch 1 looked at that and dismissed it fairly quickly as a tough gig, after they'd flown Blackpool, Aberdeen and others besides. Try to "own" a new destination like Gazipasa/Alanya whch is widely served from Europe but not flown from the UK? Probably won't have it ti yourself for very long. With easyJet piling capacity into the holiday market through a total inability to think creatively in that airline, the likes of Egypt and Tunisia have more than enough capacity.
Ultimately if a new start-up meets the licensing criteria including providing evidence of sufficient backing to meet its business plan, the CAA can't refuse to give it a licence even if they think it's bonkers. [Silverjet being a case in point.] You therefore can't say this will never start - it might. But the odds are firmly stacked against it having any longevity, in my view.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Flightrider;11489553]Monarch 1 took a row of seats out of the A320s (down to 174) and the A321s (down to 214) to provide six rows with extra legroom at the front of the cabin, on the logic that the premium from 36 extra legroom seats would exceed the marginal revenue from the last six seats on the 80% of flights on which they were sold. Delightful though it was on the few occasions when I used it, it ultimately didn't work and they put the seats back in to a high density config again.
Sorry but that's just not true. Monarch maintained the extra legroom seats right the way through and they were extremely popular especially on the longer sectors that they operated (and the marginal revenue they generated far exceeded the 6 seats lost). A fact, not conjecture.
Sorry but that's just not true. Monarch maintained the extra legroom seats right the way through and they were extremely popular especially on the longer sectors that they operated (and the marginal revenue they generated far exceeded the 6 seats lost). A fact, not conjecture.
TT, happy to stand corrected - although I would say that on the last flights I did with Monarch, the service was not available. Was it not done on later additions to the fleet? I recall quite clearly thinking that it was a shame it wasn’t offered - it was one of few (perhaps the only) USP Monarch had.
So if there is a Luxembourg investor, did he buy or retain the Airline in a box package from the wreckage of Flybe 2? Website, safety system, engineering records etc so that they have a basic platform from which to start off the CAA applications.
I believe they spent quite a few million getting the new Flybe website up and running so it makes sense to keep it ticking over ready for a few cosmetic changes.
The shutdown of Flybe 2 appears to have been well managed (secretly in cooperation with the administrators) with all bills paid. All very clever if this is what they are doing but beware any future employees, Flybe 2 were still taking on staff, encouraging people to leave other jobs and move days before the shutdown despite the fact that the Board had been working on the shutdown plan for six months. Those staff are still waiting to be paid what they are owed.
I believe they spent quite a few million getting the new Flybe website up and running so it makes sense to keep it ticking over ready for a few cosmetic changes.
The shutdown of Flybe 2 appears to have been well managed (secretly in cooperation with the administrators) with all bills paid. All very clever if this is what they are doing but beware any future employees, Flybe 2 were still taking on staff, encouraging people to leave other jobs and move days before the shutdown despite the fact that the Board had been working on the shutdown plan for six months. Those staff are still waiting to be paid what they are owed.
" Flybe 2 were still taking on staff, encouraging people to leave other jobs and move days before the shutdown despite the fact that the Board had been working on the shutdown plan for six months."
that's normal when a business is about to go under. They hope for a saviour but they know that even a business in good shape will lose suppliers and customers overnight if a rumour starts that they are thinking of closing.
that's normal when a business is about to go under. They hope for a saviour but they know that even a business in good shape will lose suppliers and customers overnight if a rumour starts that they are thinking of closing.
So if there is a Luxembourg investor, did he buy or retain the Airline in a box package from the wreckage of Flybe 2? Website, safety system, engineering records etc so that they have a basic platform from which to start off the CAA applications.
I believe they spent quite a few million getting the new Flybe website up and running so it makes sense to keep it ticking over ready for a few cosmetic changes.
The shutdown of Flybe 2 appears to have been well managed (secretly in cooperation with the administrators) with all bills paid. All very clever if this is what they are doing but beware any future employees, Flybe 2 were still taking on staff, encouraging people to leave other jobs and move days before the shutdown despite the fact that the Board had been working on the shutdown plan for six months. Those staff are still waiting to be paid what they are owed.
I believe they spent quite a few million getting the new Flybe website up and running so it makes sense to keep it ticking over ready for a few cosmetic changes.
The shutdown of Flybe 2 appears to have been well managed (secretly in cooperation with the administrators) with all bills paid. All very clever if this is what they are doing but beware any future employees, Flybe 2 were still taking on staff, encouraging people to leave other jobs and move days before the shutdown despite the fact that the Board had been working on the shutdown plan for six months. Those staff are still waiting to be paid what they are owed.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=The shutdown of Flybe 2 appears to have been well managed (secretly in cooperation with the administrators) with all bills paid. All very clever if this is what they are doing but beware any future employees, Flybe 2 were still taking on staff, encouraging people to leave other jobs and move days before the shutdown despite the fact that the Board had been working on the shutdown plan for six months. Those staff are still waiting to be paid what they are owed.[/QUOTE]
All Flybe staff were paid for the days they worked right up until the end. One of the few bits they did correctly.
All Flybe staff were paid for the days they worked right up until the end. One of the few bits they did correctly.
Using what I imagine remains a trade mark could get them into a lot of hot water with the actual owners if they indeed haven't bought the rights to use it.
Paxing All Over The World
In passing, it is worth saying that American did put all the seats back in because they learnt that folks don't want to pay the real cost of flying and would rather be cramped.
OK so a bit of digging on the Intellectual Property Office website says that all roads lead back to We Love Holidays Limited, which owns the original Monarch trademarks (for class 39, transportation) and has a pending application registered yesterday for a new category of Monarch trademarks as well. It looks to have some overseas European trading companies and the ultimate controlling party of the company is listed as Livingbridge, which is one of the larger UK venture capital / private equity companies specialising in mid-market companies. With the IPO registration yesterday, it can only be this company behind the new Monarch venture. Presumably it is getting squeezed out on supply of air seats for dynamic packages by easyJet doing its own thing and so if it is to continue making a solid set of profits (last year's £35m profit before tax on a turnover of £135m is pretty decent for the travel sector) then it needs seat supply. They've £50m in the bank (most of which looks to be their own money as opposed to customer deposits) and I'd presume access to more capital through their venture capital shareholder. Looks credible from where I sit.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting dig, thanks for sharing, certainly feels more feasible.
From looking at their accounts they state how they want to win further UK market share and expand into the German market. They also cite how their policy of allowing free cancellation is a risk as they pay for the airline seats up front and may not always recover that money....
One thing I am still confused about - why do they need the Monarch brand? Just start your own airline. 'We Love Holidays Airways' on the side of a fuselage isn't any less cheesy than 'Jet2Holidays' and would certainly help you achieve more brand awareness and market share....not sure people would necessarily join the dots with Monarch being associated with them.
From looking at their accounts they state how they want to win further UK market share and expand into the German market. They also cite how their policy of allowing free cancellation is a risk as they pay for the airline seats up front and may not always recover that money....
One thing I am still confused about - why do they need the Monarch brand? Just start your own airline. 'We Love Holidays Airways' on the side of a fuselage isn't any less cheesy than 'Jet2Holidays' and would certainly help you achieve more brand awareness and market share....not sure people would necessarily join the dots with Monarch being associated with them.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London
Age: 30
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as they bring back A330's I am all for it.. Be interesting to see what happens here. Can't imagine there being any gap in the market at the moment really. Unless they went in cheap and undercut others.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stafford
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch gave up long haul well before they went bump, restarting such routes would be a recipe for disaster.
TCX went bump too and had a significant long haul presence at MAN - do you not see the pattern?
TCX went bump too and had a significant long haul presence at MAN - do you not see the pattern?