View Full Version : Monarch "Repatriation"

2nd Oct 2017, 06:50
Why is it necessary for the CAA to charter aircraft when there are over 30 serviceable Monarch aircraft available. If it is to do with the cancellation of the AOC, surely some temporary arrangement could be made to avoid all these extra costs, or are we seeing red tape at its finest!

2nd Oct 2017, 07:04
because the aircraft get impounded as soon as they next touch earth by the airports until the outstanding charges are paid.

Can takes weeks before the airframes are released.

2nd Oct 2017, 07:09
Indeed it is, insurances, and very basic removal of airport/airside access for the staff. Agree with your comments it is almost perverse that the CAA not known for its efficiency can organise an operation this size.

It seems that irrespective of the media / CAA intimating that Monarch had till midnight last night, the movement of these various aircrafts must have been actioned in the early afternoon!

Hope the staff can gain employment soon as that is a difficult task and so demoralising. However, I imagine many of the staff must have seen this coming as the company have not performed very well in recent years and have seemed to lack direction!

2nd Oct 2017, 13:28
UK law on being in Administration prevents people from seizing assets (with a quick court order) where they have overdue debts. Chapter 11 the same in the US.

However UK law does not apply outside the UK.

The aircraft may need to be re-registered before they can fly outside the UK again.

2nd Oct 2017, 14:35
its not UK tax payers money - the repatriation costs come from the CAA air travel reserve fund

set up since clarksons went under - court line 1974
that was big but this is 2-3 times bigger

back then it was called TOSG fund

2nd Oct 2017, 21:42
My guess is that, historically, if you allowed an aircraft to depart - you had no means of knowing where it was. So you had to 'padlock' them. We are not far off being able to track aircraft and then they might be able to run the return side of the schedule to get pax home. But I doubt the insurance companies will change their mind in hurry.

A ghood article here, I think, about the factors, not least the Brexit vote affect on the Pound. Monarch: Four reasons behind its failure - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41466722)

3rd Oct 2017, 05:17
But on a positive note Andrew Swaffield has launched another aviation company! I suppose it was that or the possibility of the future Everton manager's role.

3rd Oct 2017, 14:24
On 25th September company number 10980785 was set up. Its shares are owned by Monarch Holdings, a company which looks like it is still trading.
So which companies actually went in administration? Oh yes - Monarch Airlines Ltd and Monarch Travel Ltd.
Looks like some people will be less affected than others - is there someone who is more familiar than me with the machinations of big business who can do an in depth analysis?

4th Oct 2017, 08:31
Could be set up to ensure the maintainence side of the business that is relatively safe and secure is kept separate and allowed to trade on without the airline failure bringing it down.

4th Oct 2017, 12:23

Kindly put on by one of the brethren on another thread!

5th Oct 2017, 05:58
Can takes weeks before the airframes are released.

Or longer, so a serviceable aircraft, after weeks and months of neglect on a foreign airfield, in all weathers could, at worst, become an insurance write off, underwriters very unhappy!

5th Oct 2017, 06:26
Several aircraft have departed their UK bases for foreign parts. My guess is all of them will be snapped up by other carriers around the world as they're all in good condition. Monarch Engineering are a credit to the industry.

7th Oct 2017, 14:13
Could be set up to ensure the maintainence side of the business that is relatively safe and secure is kept separate and allowed to trade on without the airline failure bringing it down.

Holdings is not in administration and Engineering is an independent company so I would think that there is some other reason. Not replying to the journalist's question about the purpose of the two companies that were set up around administration time suggests that it wasn't for the purpose of keeping other group companies trading, no?