same investers as flybe 2.0?

more likely is, withvery similar website to flybe seen on waybackmachine and lets flybe as lets Monarch.

this does look like they are going to follow Jet2 model flights and holiday packages with Using A320's
not sure if they are going to have a Y+ section as in 8 or 12 seats as bit of extra leg room or middle seat at first 2 rows can be booked out not to be used

I’ve still got my uniform 😂😂

Pedant alert!

jethro shouldn’t that be G-CRIII?

Madness. There needs to be a gap in the market which can be profitably served for any new airline to start. It's impossible to see where any such gap exists at the moment - just as with Flybe the sequel.

"Numerous opportunities yet to be filled....some of which cover Monarch's old markets."

So a focus on Egypt?

I notice that there are at least 2-3 more social media accounts creating ripoffs and even direct copies of the "official" (dubious in itself) site. They have the hallmarks of a scam for certain, perhaps evidence that the name is best left to lie

I just wonder if someone, somewhere is having a good belly laugh at the posts above (Mine included).

Egypt apparently being one of their long and inefficient downfalls…

Gibraltar.

The montegazza family might make an offer that won’t be refused 😂😂😉

I've been thinking about the possible revival of Monarch. It seemed pre 2017 to aim more at an older crowd... the brand didn't seem to be particularly youthful. Let's assume it can be ready to sell flights for autumn 2024... that,'s still 7 years after previous Monarch ceased operating. That's 7 years out of a lifetime... some of whom will have either passed away or are now too frail to be flying. Of the remaining people, many will have simply forgotten, or at best have only a vague recollection of, the brand.

Does reviving the Monarch name really add that much value to a new business ?

Indeed. To be honest, if the product is right and you're on top of the business side of things the name is immaterial. There is no value, IMO, in resurrecting these failed old brands. You can call it probably anything you want. Afterall, one of the biggest airlines in Europe is named after the surname of the founder.

Any new airline attracts PR and press so it's not as though they're doing it for that reason. And people haven't been exactly been hanging around waiting for the Monarch name to return to fly again....

What's the downside to doing it? Gives you a readymade hook to hang things on, so saves that development activity.

The Airways article talks about 15 A.320's - any link to Ascend, the ACMI operator starting a UK arm announced recently?

I guess there isn't a downside but I don't know why you would want to associate with a brand that has been failed for 6 years or so.

Just be your own people, forge your own identity.

Has a resurrected brand ever succeeded?

The downside is some people already have bad memories associated with the name. Just on Facebook posts about this there are comments like “remember when they cancelled our flight?”.

Negative comments on the internet, surely not? How do Ryanair survive?

By being cheaper AND better run

It's not just the negative comments. It's those people having that memory means they are less likely to book. Ryanair are cheap and well run. A bit of an exception in the market place really. This will end the same way as Flybe.