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