Does the "Torygraph" have a problem with Monarch?

I only ask as all the potentially negative stuff about Monarch seems to be originate from their business desk.

Perhaps it's the fact it's a wealthy Swiss family that owns them? - I don't know, it just seems odd.

Or perhaps they have an insight into the smoke and mirrors financing that has been keeping them afloat for the last five years?

"Monarch and its owners are this weekend working to put together a proposal for a dramatic shake-up that is expected to see Monarch streamline its operations by shrinking its fleet, pulling out of unprofitable routes and scaling back from some bases"
Wonder how quickly any outcome of those discussions will appear....
LTN, MAN, LGW, BHX will be fine... as for any others... mmm
Long haul is a dead duck, that should be scrapped first.

ATNotts - maybe the Telegraph is being a little unfair, maybe it's being fair. I imagibe however there would be rather less of this sort of talk if Monarch had been showing strong profits in audited accounts over the last few years.

I know the years since 2008 have been hard, but other carriers have been making good money the last few years. Flybe has been through a turnaround in the last 18 months - perhaps someone with funds to invest has a view that a similiar action plan might benefit Monarch's long term prospects ?

If Monarch were to pull out of EMA and LBA, it would be interesting to see if they would reposition those aircraft to other bases or do they have four aircraft where leases are due to expire before next summer.
(Not including the current 757's that are already leaving.)

Closing EMA and LBA must be a difficult decision if this happens, as it must have cost the airline a fortune to set these bases up. They got wet leased 737's in at very short notice to build these hubs up and got a lot of bad press, caused by using these wet-leased aircraft and lacking the service Monarch customers expected and all the issues with these aircraft going Tech. Then obtaining Airbus' A320's at short notice use at these bases. I would imagine they need to operate for several years from these bases to get a return on the investments they made.

I personally think Long Haul could also be pulled before next summer and get someone else to pick up the current schedule for next year or buy seats on Thomson/Thomas Cook/Virgin Flights.

If the lease on the A330's is not due to expire soon, I doubt there would be much problem to sub-lease them on to another that needs capacity.

Some people have an interesting interpretation of 'scaling back from some bases.'


Is that not exactly what they have done from LGW, MAN etc?

Indeed still some big holes in their MAN schedule for next year!

Maybe there is more to come?

Bases
 

I thought that BHX and MAN were both one aircraft less for 2015. If there are gaps in the MAN schedule then a small amount of pruning or rescheduling could result in another aircraft less, or as you say more to come.

Just had a recent flight with them and a very good experience..On time pushback, clean modern A321 with excellent cabin crew and good flight deck updates, all at a good price, so very sorry to see them in this mess.

To be fair they have been run by a series of no hopers and chancers for a long time. They have never been sure of their place in the market but were around long before Ryanair/Easy et al..Just had management without a vision, and were only ever able to react. Setting up a base at Leeds dominated by JET2 and Ryanair must set the likes of Jon Moulton shaking his head in wonderment. The Guys who set JET2 up are still there, still plugging away at their game plan so is O`Leary. Poor old Monarch have the Likes of Moulton licking his lips at them.

I wish them well, especially those who work for them and hope a plan does develop to see them into the future. Bon Chance:ok:

To be honest they could have been FR/EZY but they've lacked vision and have just decided they're going to morph into a low cost airline when FR/EZY have long since reached critical mass. They're way late to the party. They're promising better service, but they're ULCC just like FR/EZY.

They've lacked focus and direction and have operated in a very haphazard way. Like a state airline they haven't been very efficient, and like a state airline they have had money behind them only this time the money isn't so forthcoming. Perhaps the Mantegazzas have grown tired of piling funds into this black hole.

I really cannot see where they can go from here. The product is bare bones. It'll take more than slimline pleather seats with an ipad holder to get me onto one of their jets. And that's the problem. I like me see planes as busses. They're all much of a muchness down the back and therefore flights are selected on price. Monarch has a higher cost base due to chronic inefficiencies and can't compete profitably on price.

Unless they really do go premium and add in catering, bags and the like. Maybe become the JetBlue of Europe - where the focus is on service and extras. They're up against some very stiff competition, now more than ever.

Unfortunately I feel that Monarch as a privately owned company will always fail to compete with the stock listed Easy and Ryan. These PLC's can put out, for example, a profit warning and their shareholders acknowledge it and hold onto their shares whereas Monarch look for finance and suddenly they are in financial 'problems'. As mentioned Monarch were way ahead of Easy and Ryan but the owner(s) was so keen (possibly unlike Stalios) to hang onto what he had built up that sizeable expansion plans, which probably needed flotation, were out of the question - this is reflected in the fact that in the 'earlier' days aircraft ownership was the norm whereas leasing is now the way to go.


So faced with the possible 'acquisition' of 30 Boeings questions were raised as to the ability of a privately owned Company to fund this acquisition either by way of leasing or indeed the impossible outright purchase. Unfortunately times have passed them by (in terms of competing) but there is still time if they re-position themselves rather than taking on Easy and Ryan. Luggage costs/in flight meals/book in charges/service/hand baggage size + their Cosmos relationship are just a few ways they can distance themselves.


Just some of my thoughts - you have shot the messenger before so have a direct shot at me now!

111KAB I think your close to the mark with your comments, an old established company privately owned, trying to reinvent itself, but shackeled with legacy costs and more importantly working practices.

The telling sign is that of Price Waterhouse waiting in the wings to look at restructuring, to me it says the owners don't know what to do and are not willing to let the executive management do what they might want to do whilst the owners write more blank cheques.

I hope Jon Moulton's reading this. It'l save him the consultants fees :}

I think they should do more Enthusiast Trips. They always pretty much sell out as well and it's quite a unique feature :) It could do well to bring profits back up there.

Hope they get out of this situation as quickly as possible and hope it goes well for them :)

I would suggest that the very purpose of a stock market listing is to create a market to allow the easy buying and selling of shares in a company. The Mantegazza family might wish to sell their shareholding in Monarch but they will find it extremely difficult to find a single buyer who will offer a reasonable price. By contrast a pension fund with a 0.5 % shareholding of Easyjet can readily find a group of disparate buyers who combined will take up the pension fund's current stake.

A company with just a single shareholding can keep all meetings behind owner and directors behind closed doors. A plc listed on a stock market by necessity has to make its biannual meeting of directors and shareholders a very public affair. Anticipation of squirming in the public spotlight tends to make directors think very carefully about how best to run the company, and, more importantly, how to communicate that strategy to shareholders.

The sole recourse the Mantegazza family has for the time being in the event of a profit warning, is to fire the current directors and hire new ones - selling a large chunk of their shareholding just isn't possible. If shareholders in a plc listed on a stock exchange lose confidence, they will not just acknowledge a profit warning - they will rapidly reach for the "Sell" button on their broker's website.

davidjohnson6

Airlines are a long term business, the stock market is more interested in what goes on in the next 5 days than the next 5 years, and I honestly think that to float Monarch (or for that matter any airline) is a mistake as the "investors" are little more than gamblers in a grand way - they have no interest or knowledge of the businesses in which they invest, their sole aim is to sell their shares at a higher price than they bought them.

In a private company the shareholders an make decisions more quickly, and can of course, as has been suggested, in the case of Monarch, bring in new investor partners of their choice.

MKY661

Great idea these enthusiast flights, but honestly can't see how they're going to make a major contribution to the alleged problem (as reported by the Telegraph an few others as far as I can see) of profitability.

This lies, as it did / does with Flybe, with operating costs, overheads, and yield - all of which result in defining the profitability or otherwise of the company.

I have this picture in my mind of eighty-six year old Sergio Mantegazza getting off his beautiful yacht in Monaco yesterday evening, climbing into his Maybach, and taking it for a spin up the Corniche. There he parked in that aire which overlooks Monaco, with the hilltop town of Eze over to the right, and watched the stunning full moon at twenty year perigee rising above the Med. Having read all this stuff on PPRuNE, he then sighed sadly and said to himself "Yes, yes, they're right, now I SEE where it all went wrong!"

(No, I don't think so either.)

Georgeablelovehowindia

Great post - love it!!:D

Monarch have been one of the few UK great survivors with a great reputation with many repeat customers. Let's hope they get out of this and come out of the other side. There are fewer and fewer UK AOC's it would be a massive blow if anything untoward happened.
:\

Monarch to stop charter flying in favour of low-cost scheduled - www.travelweekly.co.uk


http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articl...le+future.html