OK, but I'm still puzzled as to what is "Germanic" about the livery. The colours of the German flag are black, red and gold.

Or perhaps it was the Germanic font styled "M" in the old livery. But that "M" has been modernised since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(airline)

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to use a Sim or have negotiated a Sim deal with the lease?

A lot has changed since I set the park brake on my flying career - even the licence is now something called a Part-FCL - but it used to be you had to fly at least ten line sectors on the real aircraft under supervision, before being fully cleared.

Anyway, as Mr @ Spotty M accurately predicted, G-ZBAV is finally off earning its keep, Birmingham to Rome FCO.

:ok:

Caught the 737 over Cannock from Darlington the other night... the First MON 737 I've seen since the old -200 series!

What is your point Integrated. I don't follow.

Nor do I, I don't see the point of his link!

https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/2...cy-plans-10839


https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/a...cy-spend-10878

No doubt someone in the CAA will be fired!!
Or probably not.

The last paragraph in the TTG article said that as a result of Greybull's investment Monarch flights no longer needed ATOL which is surely factually incorrect since only package holidays are subject to ATOL requirements, scheduled service seat sales are not and never have been.

Sloppy journalism from what is supposed to be a specialist publication, or am i wrong?

ATNotts, you are correct in that you are wrong. It is unusual but the ATOL will sometimes cover flights. Happened to TCX a while ago and MON shortly after the takeover in 2014.

It definitely won't be the Transport Minister (the pink tie I can do no wrong in Maybots eyes) Chris Grayling who takes ultimate responsibility (think Southern Rail).

Very wrong. Both TCX and MAL flights were allowed to be placed into ATOL by the CAA as a way of helping reduce exposure to credit card acquirers and taking on any repatriation or refund risk into ATOL.

If the £25.6M bill is for the moves made in preparation for Monarch's failure which obviously didn't happen, then I suspect there will be some red faces, though I would suspect there were some mitigating facts at the time. I assume credibility was fairly low at the time.

Things were looking pretty shonky, but the action they took could easily have tipped things over the edge, so I'd hope they'd think twice about doing similar in the future.

Thanks for the information, but it raises another question from me.

Obviously not all scheduled airline seat sales are covered by ATOL (unless I'm again very wrong, BA tickets aren't covered by ATOL). So what differentiates, say a major airline's (scheduled) services against the scheduled services of, for example Monarch between BHX and Stockholm? And what is the benefit to the airline of adding their scheduled point to point air tickets into their ATOL fee? Surely in the event that an airline goes bust without ATOL cover the PAX are left high and dry, and since the airline has by that stage ceased operation they incur no cost. Is the CAA under any obligation to honour tickets of passengers for a failed airline.

I can understand why from a marketing standpoint carriers like Monarch, and say Jet2, might want to be able to tell customers that they are under the umbrella of ATOL, but they have now, according to the TTG article stopped that.

Apologies if these appear naive questions.

nice little earner for the former Monarch staff who arranged the ghost fleet in spite of it being a non-event

https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/m...ccounts--11215

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-mon...-idUKKBN1451EF

http://www.mro-network.com/airlines/...rier-customers

At least the TTG has read the accounts but the figures are not correct. TTW seems to have not bothered at all.
The group now has a joint venture with Boeing for maintenance in Europe.

Must be very difficult being a relatively small fish in a large pond in the current climate , I hear the engineering business is close to signing a big deal with a major carrier for hanger work at brum:ok:

Those aren't really awful numbers in a sense (though they do make you wonder if they really should be changing to 737s at this particular point in time), but they do point to a potential problem in the future.

In the future they need to find something for 11ish extra aircraft to do at a time when it looks a bit like they could be better making sure they have stuff to keep the 34ish they have busy. They need to make sure they avoid any more unnecessary bad publicity before they try to embark on that expansion!!!

Most worrying though is that this is the airline when fuel prices are low. When the increased full prices screw turns, airlines like this, ...

The current fleet is hardly ancient , I cannot see the desperate need to replace it with new 737,s Is a max really that much of a game changer compared to the 321?

Operating older aircraft hasn't stopped jet 2 doing well

I see trouble ahead, and not just for Monarch. I sense there will be little growth, at best, over the next year or two.

Those results are awful. Monarch are barely treading water at the minute and committed to an expensive fleet renewal.

The competition have moved to a different level and MON still struggling to shake off the shackles of the past.

I hope whoever made this Boeing call got their sums right.

Does seem rather bizzare given the current situation they are in .

Surely replacing what is still a fairly modern fleet would be a nice to have rather than a essential

Totally agree the 737 order makes no sense in the current situation, and if the airline can't cancel the order, they should urgently consider delaying the arrival of the new type until a plan to reverse the airlines current situation...

I can't believe the current Airbuses are that uneconomical.

Jet2 can't be helping the situation either, opening a large new base in Birmingham and growing ops at Leeds/Bradford and Manchester. Then there is the new London base at Stansted, which much be eating some what into their routes from Luton and Gatwick. Especially when both airlines are trying to chase the same sort of customers and both like to sell their own packages too.

Monarch seems to be very heavily reliant on the UK traveller to fill their planes unlike other LCC's, which operate Europe-wide. The dire Euro-rates is doing no favours, but the other airlines can absorb this, with all the Europeans coming to the UK to take advantage, as prices are cheaper for them.

Also what are with the odd-ball routes like Tel-Aviv, Stockholm and Zagreb they are flying?! These are total opposites to the beach holiday markets they operate. Tel Aviv from Luton, must be a blood bath route, easyJet, EL-AL and Wizzair are all operating the route too!

I wonder how much of the £165 million cash injection from last year, remains in the bank?

Could that be the Greybull big wigs visiting, and having stern words?!

I actually think there is value in Monarch and that's not lost on Greybull. The engineering arm is apparently in a good place, for the airline their LGW slots and the MAX deliveries have to be of interest to Norwegian in particular but there are others that will also want a bigger slice of the LGW pie. The LTN slots may also have some nominal value. I'd love to see them Monarch stick around and grow though.

What about the quote:

One of the reasons for getting rid of the Airbuses?

May well be of interest to Norwegian but they have enough of their own problems at the minute.

From what I understand, they have looked lagerlout...

I think i'm right in saying monarch engineering look after Norwegian aircraft at various airports...

I suspect the accounting adjustment for the Airbuses wouldn't have been needed if they weren't getting rid of them before the end of the contracts.

What are these DY/D8 problems you talk of...?

I believe the MAX deal was tied into some direly needed funds - which came via Boeing. So Monarch are wedded to the marriage with the MAX. They say to marry once for money...

Of course operationally the Airbus fleet isn't old, is pretty fuel and maintenance efficient. What we don't know is what the lease terms are like - I suspect there is a whiff of the type of thing that dragged bmi down once it was separated from its original owner. The group had various associated leasing companies from which aircraft were leased to the operating airline at rates which were not necessarily representative of the market. This seems a sensible (if not terribly ethical) way to move profits around and works as long as the group remains intact. Once separated off the money becomes "real" and the obvious problems start.

Ever considered the fact that operating only to the beach holiday market was what got them into trouble in the first place? Perhaps diversifying a bit and moving into city break territory is just what the doctor ordered.

Just look at their operation at BHX; they've picked up a bunch of cities that were unserved - Lisbon, Porto, Stockholm, Valencia which seem to be working well. Together with the likes of Barcelona, Madrid, Nice, Naples, Rome, Venice and the usual Alicante, Malaga etc you've got a network that is increasingly mirroring what EasyJet have been doing at other airports across the UK.

Zagreb is apparently going to be offered from BHX next year.

Fairly well documented. Delivery of leased aircraft they can't fly but costing them lots of money sat around. Massive expansion of long haul flying, cancellations due lack of crew. Could say growing pains I guess?

More like bad planning.

01475
 

I can assure you they are not returning any of the Airbuses early. :=

I hope people won't mind my asking but putting it directly, why do Brits need Monarch and what is its target market ? I know this is a major strategy question but the answer escapes me.

David - I would ask the same question... The slightly obscure city routes are confusing, compared to their more established sun routes (albeit being challenged on - Spain/Portugal).

Choice and competition is the only thing they offer. There appears no real USP with Monarch, they offer the same routes from the same airports. There also seems to be a hangover from the charter days which places the airline in the locations it currently operates from, and again offering the same routes.
Brits just need/want options, reality is we don't 'need' anything more than is currently available at the larger airports all within two hours of most of the UK population.
If an airline can offer a little more convienience and competitive cost then the seats are there for the taking.
If Monarch had chosen DSA over LBA a few years ago the story might be different...at least in the Yorkshire region. Flybe have since taken the popular routes. Would this have been enough to change Monarch's fortunes? Maybe not, people will pay a small premium for convienience but a significant difference in price would see people travelling an hour North or South for the cheaper fares - they've probably secured the market rate bookings at LBA.
Me personally, not used Monarch for 6 years, they are always more expensive than FR/LS and at the end of the day it's just a ride from A-B.

Monarch
 

G-FORZ

In general you might be right but not the case at BHX, Monarch offer 17 destinations as a schedule operation not offered by any other airline (soon to be 15) and 8 of those are not served in any form at all although all but three of the 8 can be reached from the Midlands via EMA.

However they do a good job for BHX with EasyJet not interested, Ryanair very cautious and Flybe don't have the right equipment for some of these routes or the right cost-base by the look of it.

I used them recently to Preveza (Parga) which was a destination I wanted to visit for years but I was not prepared to travel north or south for the family holiday although I have used Gatwick this year (BGI) and will be using Heathrow soon (Avios) but in this case it was Monarch that provided the service I wanted. Coincidentally Flybe now also have a charter a few minutes after the ZB flight but for a specialised IT operator with eye-watering prices.

I do understand your point about from Manchester and Gatwick but for BHX they do fill a gap in the market where others have failed or are not interested.

The product was excellent, flights, crew (all but one newbie on the way out), extra leg-room although I chose standard seats on the way out which were fabric and the leg-room was non-existent and that was a negative.

Even got an airbridge at BHX which was attached in seconds (yes thumbs up Swissport) on a busy Sunday afternoon and as I was in row 5, I was off in minutes and bags were only 30-35 minutes.

It is difficult to compare with other airlines as I have either used Thomson (short-haul holidays) or long-haul scheduled recently but miles better than my last experience with Ryanair although to be fair that was a long time ago before allocated seating so hardly an up to date comparison.

BHX seems to be unlucky with two of their local airlines experiencing difficulties with aircraft on expensive leases (ZB Airbus & Flybe Embraer).


NB. Booked with Monarch Holidays but my Credit Card shows Cosmos