CAA pays for all rescue flights out of the ATOL bond if the company fails. If they choose to act prematurely as appears to be the case here then they foot the bill...which means of course that the UK taxpayer actually gets to pay!

Plus I would assume that Monarch will get the opportunity to take the CAA to court for loss of earnings, reputational damage etc etc

I hope whoever pushed the button has their backside covered!! :uhoh:

Fill in the gaps
 

Lurked around this forum for a while, never posted but cards on the table I work for Monarch.

The lack of information is seriously irritating. If there are negotiations ongoing, I understand the need for secrecy. The facts I know are annual license negotiations are expected to conclude very soon, current license is valid and Monarch not bankrupt. Why the need for mass charter in the first place?!?!

Is that CAA warning at 16:11 on the BBC , the first public announcement they've made this week?

Welcome. The CAA have fuelled this whole saga, from the ghost charter flights to the lack of acknowledgment of the situation If they had just come out and explained the position, then maybe it would have put Monarch in a better light to the public.

China's HNA Group, easyJet eye Monarch Airlines - ch-aviation.com

It sounds like the license needs to be renewed ASAP and certainly within 72 hours.

Until that's done, it seems to me that Monarchs only got 72 hours left.

I suspect the price may be less today vs April...

From what I gather second or third hand, you are absolutely right FANS Monarch have only got 72 hours until AOC is pulled.

That's 72 hours that I know for sure that remain employed, Internal Communications seem fairly positive so hopefully investment will be found and we can live to fight another day.

I'd love to know what the CAA were playing at when they decided to charter the aircraft.

As my daughter is in Cyprus and is due to fly back with Monarch on the 1st of October.I thought I'D check out the ATOL website.On that site there is a ATOL protection cotribution table,this lays out the requirements for Airlines reporting passenger information and payment to ATOL.A company the size of Monarch would report and pay on a monthly basis.Reports need to be filed two weeks after the end of the month with payment made four weeks after that.In other words Augusts report was due second week of September and Julys payment was due second week of September.Monarchs own website mention a figure of 2.5 million passengers a year.The ATOL fee is £2.50 per passenger that would mean an average of £500,000 payable per month.I don,t believe that an organisation like ATOL or CAA would jump the gun.Either a report hasn't been filed or a payment hasn't been made.I do hope for both passengers and staff that the situation can be resolved.

The same happened 2 years ago (Greybull Capital) when the CAA granted a 3 week extension to the 01/10 'deadline' .... CAA grants Monarch ATOL extension

Do Easy Jet have an ATOL licence?

I think the more pertinent question now for the CAA is whether, in the legal sense, those running this company are fit and competent to hold an ATOL licence.

Even if Monarch hand over their dues in full and pay for all of the aircraft which have undoubtedly been chartered to deal with what the ATOL trustees have perceived to be the imminent failure of the business to meet its obligations, the CAA/ATOL have no legal obligation to renew their licence.

Yes https://www.easyjet.com/en/holidays/info/protection/

you are only covered by ATOL with easy jet if you buy a package holiday through easyJet holidays which is separate to the scheduled airline.

An ATOL and an AOC are different things.

Yes icepack - number 10915 for packages.

Thanks. So actually monarch do not require an ATOL licence.
However obviously they do require an AOC.
So the CAA must have been concerned about the AOC. Which IMHO seems a somewhat odd thing if Mon are "trading well". Think someone was not being given the information/proof.

clearance - the CAA may well have drastic powers in reserve, but will likely be reluctant to use the more extreme options without very good reason for fear of an impending media storm. Furthermore, causing a major UK airline to close would likely be a decision that crosses the desk of a minister in the Dept of Transport as questions would be possible at some level in Parliament.

Clearance

I very much doubt whether Monarch will have to pay for the chartered planes. As TartinTon explained earlier, claims are made against the ATOL bond if the airline fails. Monarch has not failed. My guess is there will be separate CAA insurance to cover abortive events such as this.

I very much doubt Monarch will have any difficulty proving they are competent and capable of holding an ATOL certificate. They have held one for many years and it's simply a renewal. Just think about that.

I thought ATOL was mainly an insurance for consumers against an insolvency type event with their airline. Presumably like any insurance , the higher the perceived risk , the higher the cost . If so, it's just a simple matter of grey bull putting their hands in their pocket....

Given the much wider political implications, however , I think many of us suspect that the renewal will have ministerial input.

I'm not sure if not having ATOL = insolvency , however , although clearly it makes matters even harder, and may be a requirement of existing funding

No. Their holidays are Atol protected because they are sold through Hotelopia Holidays who hold an Atol. Flight only aren't Atol protected. Flights booked direct with the airline aren't Atol protected because airlines don't hold Atols.

Monarch flights are sold through First Aviation, who hold the Atol. If they no longer held an Atol Monarch could still sell flights direct. There could be no package holidays sold though.

Janey, I believe there are two ATOL's. One for flight only sales through the 'Monarch.co.uk' website under the umbrella of First Aviation, and another for packaged sales under 'Cosmos/Monarch Holidays'.

Monarch flight only sales are ATOL protected if ex-UK.

True. There are 2 Atols, but if Cosmos (trading as Monarch Holidays) can't renew then there will be no package sales available.

Yes, the first flight has to originate in the UK to be protected but obviously the inbound is protected when booked all on one ticket.

What is unclear is if it is a condition of trading (by ?) that flight only sales are protected by an ATOL. In which case that would be a problem.

I find this a rather strange event in UK aviation history, i can recall nothing like it and it must be very worrying for Monarch employees.

The CAA are many things, but they are normally very measured in the actions they take unless there is a direct and immediate safety threat, that is unlikely to be the case here.

Grey bull are no doubt used to brinkmanship, its the nature of their business in dealing/buying distressed assets, but they have been around long enough and in this industry long enough to know that with out the appropriate licences to operate in a heavily regulated industry, then their assets can quickly be sized to pay debts.

As to Monarch itself, the people i know that work there say its still closer to a legacy airline than say Ryanair or easyJet in terms of its efficiency or cost base, but a long way from the halcyon days of yore, we know that when Greybull acquired them that they were incredibly lucky with their timing, Monarch i'm told did not have the financial assets to secure forward hedging on fuel and when the fuel price collapsed they got an immediate advantage over hedged rivals.

Talk of a Jet2 buyout is in my view very unlikely, they were closely involved with bmibaby in its dying throes and watched it die then pick up many of the routes and crew without paying for any risky investment, why would they see Monarch differently? plus they have just taken on a huge gamble with expanding at both BHX and STN i doubt they have the stomach or money to take Monarch, same probably applies to Norwegian and easyJet who have not had a good year, it would be petty cash money for FR but not their style either, anyone from outside the EU will have ownership issues.

So its probably down to Greybull to find the money or another investor, good luck to all

One way or another , those who own Monarch will end up paying for all costs incurred , the CAA are very good at that .

would an EU investor even think about getting involved in our current political climate?

Is the ATOL circa £5m? If so, it's relatively small beer for an airline Monarch's size but brinkmanship is a game played better by some than others.

And the ATOL deposit should roll from one year to another. Me thinks this is bigger than just the £5m deposit.

ZB Spanish capacity up 20+% this year with a 10% demand uptake and falling yields means that late summer profits were stretched.

Well well I come back to civilization after a few days away, I find chicken Licken is running around shouting that the sky is falling in.
For the purpose of the exercise insert the name of an airline, any airline, run a shadow repat schedule and a logistics fulfillment scenario,some one will pick up on it ,read more into the financial situation ( faced by nearly all operators ) In the old days rumor did not become reality through idle chat and speculation, now if it is repeated enough it will be accepted as the truth and the horses well and truly frightened.
If an airline goes it will go very quickly and with very little advance public notice.

Having sold their 330s, they don't have long haul capacity to mitigate some of the damage done by Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey etc becoming shall we say "unappealing" to tourists due to recent events in the same way that Thomson and Tommy Cook can.

I wish them well, and more importantly I wish all their employees well. Hope there'll be an end to the rumours and speculation soon. Chin up guys and gals, keep fighting.

Just a simple answer to those who still think as a conspiranoia the fact only North American WB metal are doing the stand-by task and almost no european carrier except an A330 of portuguese HiFly (United, Omni, Atlas, etc). All resumes in a simple 4 letter word »»» Hajj

Yes indeed, but with 21st century technology it's really hard for public facing businesses, particularly those that take customer's money upfront, to do business in private.

How, pre-FR24 and internet fora would anyone have found out and had the means to broadcast the chartering of aircraft by the CAA last weekend?

Is the world a better place as a result? Personally I doubt it, but we are where we are, and the clock ain't being turned back any time soon!

On the flip side for everyone, if you were a betting man, it's a very good time to book flights with Monarch for later this year. Their flight prices have been smashed right down on many routes.

28 United crew flew home yesterday and another 28 arrived at Manchester this morning.
I'm guessing nothing has changed yet

Have Monarch actually reduced prices?

Surely that just makes matters worse - it directly impacts profit, sends further messages out re desperation. Yes it helps short term cash ( subject to credit card companies) but I think it spooks people more.

How would you know that? Do you have access to the passenger information?

Anyway, were they 744 crew, or perhaps crew destined to operate UK schedules?

This is just the sort idle rumourmongering that will assist in sending Monarch under, along with their employees. Some spotters just won't give up will they? Hopefully your employer may find themselves in the media spotlight - imagine how you'd feel if others were indulging in idle speculation that put your job under threat.

At least the loads will be half decent on the United services

I think many people here are living a little in the past- we live in a world where internet access means lots of people and the media have lots of access to lots of information and the media will use it to stay in business.

The real fault here is with Monarch management who have said nothing to dispel this and made no statement as to the airline's actual position - and appear to have mis-mananged the company (or perhaps got into to something they shouldn't have when they bought it). I can't imagine the management of Ryanair, BA EasyJet getting into this mess.

As for Monarch slashing prices- they may not have to; their yield management system may do it for them to try to keep the aeroplanes full.

I'm struggling to understand what Monarch's management could have said. Had they said that everything was fine the usual suspects would have, and did, rubbish the statement.

Had they said they were in the brown sticky stuff, and negotiating with financiers to save the business they would have gone bankrupt.

They did, as I recall, say the business is operating profitably, and that talks were underway to secure further investment (dosh to you and I!). That, I would say was a fair assessment of their situation, without, to use a political cliche, "giving a running commentary".

The carriers you mention would have exactly the same dilemma, and the commentators would generally only want to believe their version of the truth, be it fact, or fiction.