The issue at play here is the cut and dry nature of doing business, and the brutal way in which regulation works. One thing is for sure, the wishful thinking that the UK Government would step in and bailout/nationalise the company, is exactly that - wishful thinking. The government would not go anywhere near it. It would certainly get very messy with respect of EU state funding rules if it even attempted such a move.

I'm inclined to also think that Monarch was more non-package direct ticket sales operation than a package operation at the end, and that Thomas Cook remains predominantly package holiday-filled flights, be that for a week at the beach or their sports and cruise arms.

All the points that rog747 made are entirely accurate in this instance. In business and in regulation, there is no time for sentiment and certainly no respect for heritage. If you don't have the dosh, you're finished. Simple as that.

It's not necessarily correct, but is almost always the case. There have been airlines in the UK operating under the remit of administrators whilst trying to flog the operations as a going concern. Duo out of Birmingham is one that springs to mind that limped on for about a week under administration before the dosh ran out completely. AB Airlines also limped on for a short while whilst in administration in 1999 before its last remaining (valuable) assets were flogged to British Airways.

Any administrator worth their salt will want to get best value for the asset, and there is more value in an operating asset than there is in a closed one.

Where ceasing trading comes in, is when there is simply no money in the pot to pay creditors, and they start withdrawing their services and/or labour. For an airline, this is devastating because, as a brutal example, if you don't pay for your refuelling on arrival in Palma de Mallorca for your packed charter back to East Midlands, the folks on the ground in Palma are not going to let your aircraft leave.......... now we're off to the races.

It cannot be great if you’re a TCX employee but I do think, despite all of the doom and gloom surrounding TCX, that they will likely scrape through this by the skin of their teeth.

IMHO the media coverage, some of it people may see as scaremonging, has been the nail in the coffin for TCX. Are consumers likely to start putting faith back into TCX if they do pull through? I’m not so sure. The publicity surrounding the whole situation cannot be helping the already awful looking financial predicament.

For any crew on here, let’s hope for the best.

It's quite clear that the company isn't going down without a fight, having today filed for bankruptcy protection in the US against possible foreclosure from US creditors.

It also goes to show just how precarious the situation really is. The company now requires protection from the courts to continue operating in the short term.

Source: Bloomberg

You're wrong to assume the CAA is just a giant bank that's there to keep large airlines aloft. I'm afraid that isn't in their remit. They will obviously be disappointed if the airline collapsed and people lose jobs but it isn't their job to look after failing companies, but to be a safety regulator and to protect the consumer.

The Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee will meet at midday UK time (BST) on Thursday 19 September to decide whether filing for Chapter 15 bankruptcy in the USA has triggered a credit event and thus whether credit default swap protection has been invoked
To those not familiar with the credit default swaps, this will all sound tediously dull, but the outcome of this meeting may have a significant impact on the long term survival of Thomas Cook
https://www.cdsdeterminationscommitt...ook-group-plc/

It is generally fine to move aircraft, slots etc around. Provided that any financing terms don't prohibit their transfer. However, if a company deliberately moves assets form one place to another right before declaring that they are insolvent, solely for the purposes of "protecting" them from creditors, courts often take a dim view. This would be doubly true for secured assets.

I do stand corrected, thank you. At the time of the insolvency only about 20% of Monarchs passengers were ATOL protected. I don't know what TC's ratios are. Incidentally, the collapse of Monarch triggered a big review of Airline Insolvency in the UK. One of the basic outcomes is that while it isn't strictly necessary to suspend the OL and AOC for an insolvent airline it is the default, especially if the CAA was not involved in the process leading up to insolvency. The review recommended the a 'special administration regime' be setup to better manage airline insolvency. This would allow a gradual wind down of operations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...w-final-report

Filing for bankruptcy protection is by no means a standard part of proceedings. The whole purpose of the filing in the US courts is to stop Thomas Cook's creditors over there from grounding its planes or turning its paying customers away from hotels that haven't been paid. It also stops the bondholders from calling in their positions.

It is only done by a company that is in not only dire straits, but simply does not have the cash on hand right at that moment of filing. It buys Thomas Cook a few days of continuing liquidity at best, but should such a filing be on the cards in Europe, its straight to the administrators without passing go or collecting 200.

That as it may be, and if it is the case that yesterday's (17th) filing in New York is as part of that, investors will have a fair complaint against the company. Something I'm sure will be at the forefront of tomorrow's CDDC meeting.

I can't see it being favourable for Thomas Cook at that meeting. The Chapter 15 effectively blocks some of the bondholders from derailing the sale or re-organisation of the company by paying them out on the basis of the company being in default, thus triggering the CDDC meeting.

If the CDDC meeting gives a damning verdict on the company's position and liquidity (which it almost certainly will), it will turn out to be a very tough end of the week for the company on the European markets - if its shares aren't suspended from trading by then.

Perhaps a more informed article diffident....
https://www.ft.com/content/c495f92e-...b-77216ebe1f17

I saw that article yesterday.

It says broadly exactly what I have said, but in a shall we say, more succinct way. The outcome is the same, the CDDC will make a ruling which will have a profound effect on the company.

If the CDDC determine the company to be insolvent, then that's that. If the CDDC determines the company to be solvent and have liquidity, the hedge funds will kick up a stink at the creditor meetings at the end of the month.

Either way, and I'm in the camp that surely something can be done somewhere to rescue the company, it doesn't look great for Thomas Cook's future when it appears the bondholders and the hedge funds have seemingly made their minds up.