PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Cook Gone


imissmyeurostar
23rd Sep 2019, 01:29
At 02.05 am on 23rd September 2018 Thomas Cook one of the oldest travel firms went into administration, at the time I was watching one if its final flights descending into Manchester. This is a very sad day.. Besides the thousands of passengers affected., there are 22,000 jobs on the line worldwide.

Before anybody says topic is covered elsewhere TCX for example, its too important for that..

Airbubba
23rd Sep 2019, 02:08
More here: https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599819-thomas-cook-2-a.html

evansb
23rd Sep 2019, 02:50
https://d2osdnqd2igqfx.cloudfront.net/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/078/iStock-518679572_Main.jpg

Doug E Style
23rd Sep 2019, 03:59
This is very sad news. Yesterday over France we flew past one of their aircraft, ironically it was in a hybrid Monarch/Thomas Cook colour scheme. Good luck to all the staff.

mickjoebill
23rd Sep 2019, 04:33
Will any one airline benefit from filling the void left by TCís demise?

BBC report that 40 aircraft will be chartered to move 150,000 uk citizens back to Brexit land. Would TC aircraft be available for charter to fullfill this role?

Mjb

LTNman
23rd Sep 2019, 04:44
No, as they will have been impounded by airports due to unpaid debts.

Farrell
23rd Sep 2019, 05:59
I wonder if Virgin will grab pilots like they did with Monarch. A friend of mine was back in the air within weeks, and much happier with his lot, so it would appear.

Meester proach
23rd Sep 2019, 06:14
Damn shame.
Who would work in this precarious business these days ?

i certainly wouldnít do it all again.
.

Best of luck to the staff in finding something else soon .

Claude1
23rd Sep 2019, 06:25
So are there any companies that might snap up some of the aircraft and pilots?

dboy
23rd Sep 2019, 06:31
So are there any companies that might snap up some of the aircraft and pilots?

These days??? I doubt it. Just a few.

Bergerie1
23rd Sep 2019, 06:41
They are more likely to grab the much more valuable airport slots

Sunfish
23rd Sep 2019, 06:50
You can be an airline, a travel agency or a hotel. Not all three. McKinseys have been banging on about diversification’s perils since at least 1990 according to my memory.

rotorwills
23rd Sep 2019, 07:07
Jet2 alongside EasyJet with Ryan would appear benefit from the lack of a competitive airline. I sympathise with all the staff and hope that this employer loss is only a temporary situation for them. Our industry is not immune from company failures, not the first and certainly not the last we will endure. Good luck to all.

Minister Lollipop
23rd Sep 2019, 07:12
My ex-husband is a pilot with them - they used to go to Flight Ops meetings once a year and when the pilots were expressing concerns about easyJet taking more and more market share and moving into holidays/package market the management were just saying they are not a competitor and they are not worried - just had their heads in the sand. This was 10 years ago - failure to recognise the market place and to develop niche options which low cost wouldn't move into.

Mike Flynn
23rd Sep 2019, 07:15
The days of package tour operators and travel agents are numbered.

It’s a lot cheaper for most people to book their flights and hotels online.

Claude1
23rd Sep 2019, 07:16
The days of package tour operators and travel agents are numbered.

Itís a lot cheaper for most people to book their flights and hotels online.
Except, according to a news report this morning, that by doing so you have less legal protection when things go wrong, than if you booked a complete package.

Mike Flynn
23rd Sep 2019, 07:19
Except, according to a news report this morning, that by doing so you have less legal protection when things go wrong, than if you booked a complete package.

Book with a credit card and you are protected over £100 by the consumer credit regulations.

back to Boeing
23rd Sep 2019, 07:24
Book with a credit card and you are protected over £100 by the consumer credit regulations.


Youíll get a refund but that wonít get you home if you have to buy a last minute ticket from wherever.

WHBM
23rd Sep 2019, 07:28
The days of package tour operators and travel agents are numbered.

It’s a lot cheaper for most people to book their flights and hotels online.

However, the flights were filled, the charges mid-market, they may not have made much but at least doing this you don't lose much. The fleet's all leased as I understand it anyway. They were even chartering capacity in.

The hotels were basically a booking agency. Again, maybe don't make much now but can just break even.

So why the huge debts. It wasn't going out in current expenditure and income. It was from the huge loans taken out years ago to buy up all those other companies, the MyTravels, the Condors, etc. That had to be paid back, with interest, and it couldn't be. That's where the money is due. And those are the financing deals that have been sold on and on in the finance world. And where the management has all their attention concentrated.

Alpine Flyer
23rd Sep 2019, 07:41
Youíll get a refund but that wonít get you home if you have to buy a last minute ticket from wherever.
EU regulations require tour operators to participate in a kind of rescue scheme that will pay for homebound flights in cases like this. Details are left to national legislation.

MarkDip
23rd Sep 2019, 07:56
It was the ill fated merger with My Travel MYT back in 2007 that was the first and by far the biggest nail in the coffin. The debt that came with MYT proved to be unsustainable and since then the management have spent far too much time and playing the equivalent of twister with the banks. But no matter how much they twisted the debt was still there. Since the merger TC has paid over one billion in fees and interest payments. That left virtually no cash for the investment required to keep up with the competition in a rapidly changing market.

icemanalgeria
23rd Sep 2019, 08:04
Why didnít the U.K. government help ?
Italian has saved many of its airlines past and present. Whatís the cost to the government now in social fees to the now unemployed ?

Maninthebar
23rd Sep 2019, 08:07
Why didnít the U.K. government help ?
Italian has saved many of its airlines past and present. Whatís the cost to the government now in social fees to the now unemployed ?

...less than the cost of keeping the business running indefinitely

deepknight
23rd Sep 2019, 08:32
It was the ill fated merger with My Travel MYT back in 2007 that was the first and by far the biggest nail in the coffin. The debt that came with MYT proved to be unsustainable and since then the management have spent far too much time and playing the equivalent of twister with the banks. But no matter how much they twisted the debt was still there. Since the merger TC has paid over one billion in fees and interest payments. That left virtually no cash for the investment required to keep up with the competition in a rapidly changing market.
My Travel had a clean balance sheet at the merger, after its own rescue from insolvency, (following a debt for equity swap which the banks then swiftly sold on at a good profit). Don't blame us oldtimers from MYT.

FR9999
23rd Sep 2019, 08:32
Thing I donít get.... British government was to stupid to fork out the last £150 million pounds(with a billion pounds already available from private parties to sort out the huge debt) and now everyone is stranded and with many job losses consequently. But in the meantime Condor is applying for a temporary loan from the German government, and is able to conduct normal business, and will probably be sold in the near future. So no repatriation needed and people can still go to work. Why the h*ll this is not happening in the UK?

BristolScout
23rd Sep 2019, 08:34
Icemanalgeria. There are EU rules against governments bailing out failing businesses. Unlike our continental friends and partners, we are sticklers for the rules in Blighty.

Maninthebar
23rd Sep 2019, 08:37
Icemanalgeria. There are EU rules against governments bailing out failing businesses. Unlike our contine

These 'rules' do not prevent governments providing transitional support to companies, indeed MANY (?most) EU members have done so from time to time. It has been the UK govt's choice NOT to do so in many cases.

There are perfectly good political and/or economic arguments against such interventions but our politicians have fed the LIE that it is evil Europe that has prevented this and cost decent British jobs. And here we are.....

Ben_S
23rd Sep 2019, 08:38
Itís nothing to do with Brexit but those pushing one political view or another would have you think so.

I must be the only one that didn't bother having a family holiday abroad this year because of Brexit uncertainty and piss poor exchange rates.

Mind you, even if I had, it wouldn't have been with TC due to their disgraceful corporate handling of the carbon monoxide deaths in Corfu so as you were, nothing to do with Brexit.

slowjet
23rd Sep 2019, 08:46
And why should Governments bail out businesses ? Business is business and it is often in a very hard commercial world. I didn't see the Government bail out British Eagle, Court Line, Laker, Air Europe etc, etc. As Professional pilots, we know, or should know the commercial risks of getting too loyal to a brand. TC definitely not the first and others will follow. Pick your employers carefully. Good luck to all at TC.

deepknight
23rd Sep 2019, 08:46
TCX's greatest problem was its incompetent management. It wouldn't listen to criticism, was in a permanent state of "group-think", and focused only on its individual reward. I recall being told, many years ago, by a manager now long gone, that we had nothing to fear from easyJet because "it was a totally different business model".

anotherthing
23rd Sep 2019, 08:48
Jet2 are trying to cash in. Tried to book flights back from Lanzarote for next Jan as we were booked with TCX. Got all the details in and told price was circa £4700 (8 people). Went to the pay now page and they stated price had risen to £7600 due to demand. I can see many people will panic and just pay it. Fortunately TUI offered much fairer price. Condolences to all passengers and staff. Sad day.

As for Government bail outs - where would you stop? Would you expect them to bail out every business that fails? What about Jamie's food business? Or HofF or the numerous other businesses that are struggling and are on the brink?

Fly Aiprt
23rd Sep 2019, 08:50
Due to the UK still being a member of the EU, the stranded passengers will be able to get home under the EU passenger rights rules.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/index_en.htm

FR9999
23rd Sep 2019, 08:54
Jet2 are trying to cash in. Tried to book flights back from Lanzarote for next Jan as we were booked with TCX. Got all the details in and told price was circa £4700 (8 people). Went to the pay now page and they stated price had risen to £7600 due to demand. I can see many people will panic and just pay it. Fortunately TUI offered much fairer price. Condolences to all passengers and staff. Sad day.

As for Government bail outs - where would you stop? Would you expect them to bail out every business that fails? What about Jamie's food business? Or HofF or the numerous other businesses that are struggling and are on the brink?


Shortsightedness is something hard to overcome.

However if you can avoid paying £600 million pounds for repatriation, minimize tax revenue loss and avoid millions of benefit payouts by lending a £150 million pounds, then that makes more sense then just simply stick to capitalistic principles. Donít forget, private investors and banks had already a billion pounds in place....

sooty655
23rd Sep 2019, 09:11
Shortsightedness is something hard to overcome.

However if you can avoid paying £600 million pounds for repatriation, minimize tax revenue loss and avoid millions of benefit payouts by lending a £150 million pounds, then that makes more sense then just simply stick to capitalistic principles. Donít forget, private investors and banks had already a billion pounds in place....
One might equally ask if private investors and banks had already a billion pounds in place, why was an extra £150 million too much for them?

anotherthing
23rd Sep 2019, 09:26
Shortsightedness is something hard to overcome.

However if you can avoid paying £600 million pounds for repatriation, minimize tax revenue loss and avoid millions of benefit payouts by lending a £150 million pounds, then that makes more sense then just simply stick to capitalistic principles. Donít forget, private investors and banks had already a billion pounds in place....

FR9999

there is a saying in business Ďthe first loss is the best lossí

£600M to repatriate etc versus £150M to bolster. TCX have posted a first half year loss of over £1Bn. So HMG throws in £150M to cover.

what happens next time? Throw in more money? Keep throwing in money, good after bad?

where does HMG stop? Which businesses should it bail out and which shouldnít they? The banks are a different proposition. An airline/holiday company, although sad for individuals involved, is not an essential fabric of the economy, especially whenJet2 etc are there to mop up, which they will.

TCX is a failed business. It is sad, but it is a fact. Plenty other businesses are managing despite ĎBrexití which some people in here are laying the blame at the feet of.

HMG is right not to take a financial interest in. As to what other European countries do, that is there business. Europe is not, despite best intentions, a level playing field

rationalfunctions
23rd Sep 2019, 09:32
So are there any companies that might snap up some of the aircraft and pilots?

Flybe are reaching out...
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/525x364/flybe_7a3d90c701254e2a62cb8295932a59906d4359d3.png

parabellum
23rd Sep 2019, 10:24
I believe I am correct in saying that the administrator can agree to pay off outstanding airport charges, including landing fees, if there is insufficient capacity, in order to free up TC aircraft to be used for repatriation purposes.

Jump Complete
23rd Sep 2019, 10:33
I believe I am correct in saying that the administrator can agree to pay off outstanding airport charges, including landing fees, if there is insufficient capacity, in order to free up TC aircraft to be used for repatriation purposes.
Yes but hasnít TCXís AOC been stopped? So the aircraft (and crew to operate them) would need to be put on another operators AOC?

WHBM
23rd Sep 2019, 11:24
I believe I am correct in saying that the administrator can agree to pay off outstanding airport charges, including landing fees, if there is insufficient capacity, in order to free up TC aircraft to be used for repatriation purposes.
Where do we think the administrator is going to get the money from ? There are going to be a lot of unpaid bills around. It will take them until probably past the repatriation period to understand all the accounts and the legal implications of what they find.

If the carrier has ceased trading there is nobody with their name on the line to take responsibility. The insurers will have suspended cover on everything. The aircraft are likely to be seized by bailiffs for the first who gets to them who is owed significant sums. You can't work like that.

RTM Boy
23rd Sep 2019, 12:03
It's all very simple really.

Thomas Cook had £1.7 billion of debt owed to the banks. That's over £26 of debt for every man, woman and child in the whole of the UK.

A look at its last published accounts for y/e 30/9/18 (a year ago) showed;

£4.2 billion current liabilities
£2.1 billion in non-current liabilities
£6.3 billion total liabilities (the previous two added together)
Net assets of just £291 million
Accumulated losses of £1.965 billion.

(Source: Thomas Gook Group Annual Report and Accounts 2018)

What it must have been like 12 months later I can't begin to imagine.

Bankruptcy was inevitable when the cashflow could no longer cover interest payments and the costs of running the business at the end of the summer holiday period when TC should have been making money hand over fist.

Why is anyone surprised? Blaming BREXIT for this is a joke. A very bad joke. Three things caused this; debt, debt and debt. Period.

yellowtriumph
23rd Sep 2019, 12:26
No, as they will have been impounded by airports due to unpaid debts.

Flew into Gatwick this morning at 8.30am and all their aircraft were parked up at various points, each with a snow plough behind it to prevent any movement.

Fedaykin
23rd Sep 2019, 12:42
Damn shame.
Who would work in this precarious business these days ?

i certainly wouldnít do it all again.
.

Best of luck to the staff in finding something else soon .

I would think there would be some keen takers of their B757-200/300

ASRAAMTOO
23rd Sep 2019, 12:50
When Air Berlin went down the tubes the German Government put in enough money to allow a controlled run down. I believe they thought this the cheapest way to proceed. Looking at the figures above bailing out Thomas Cook long term was not a sensible option.

It WOULD however be sensible to put in enough money to allow its fleet to operate whilst holiday makers and ticket holders are repatriated. It would be cheaper and easier than chartering every spare jet in Europe!

Hong Kong Dave
23rd Sep 2019, 12:55
Question : Was the failure caused by hedge funds which wanted the recent rescue attempt to fail ? i.e. they stood to make more money from Thomas Cook failing than being saved, because the had a large potential payout from credit default swaps if it failed, versus what they'd get in case of a rescue.

switch_on_lofty
23rd Sep 2019, 13:04
My metaphorical money's on easyJet to pickup a lot of the lost capacity.
Glut of UK airbus crew and impending relaunch of easyJet holidays apparently.
Very sad about tcx and all their staff.

etudiant
23rd Sep 2019, 13:14
Question : Was the failure caused by hedge funds which wanted the recent rescue attempt to fail ? i.e. they stood to make more money from Thomas Cook failing than being saved, because the had a large potential payout from credit default swaps if it failed, versus what they'd get in case of a rescue.

Bloomberg thinks so:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/thomas-cook-collapse-sets-up-250-million-hedge-fund-windfall?srnd=premium

More background:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-17/thomas-cook-s-rescue-tests-reputation-of-default-protection

Meester proach
23rd Sep 2019, 13:17
I believe I am correct in saying that the administrator can agree to pay off outstanding airport charges, including landing fees, if there is insufficient capacity, in order to free up TC aircraft to be used for repatriation purposes.


Of course not. The crews would be rightly jubious of being paid .

etudiant
23rd Sep 2019, 13:40
Possibly the major carriers are less than distraught at the prospect of a wave of low cost carrier failures.
Certainly such is the prospect according to Philipp Goedeking, Managing Partner of Avinomics. (In German):
https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-konsumgueter/thomas-cook-insolvenz-luftfahrt-experte-goedeking-da-sind-noch-einige-marktaustritte-zu-erwarten/25045000.html

Nugget90
23rd Sep 2019, 13:45
'Jump Complete' queried the current status of Thomas Cook's AOC. I can't answer that but I can offer some information as to how the CAA might manage this aspect of the demise of this air operator, for some 20+ years ago I was Head of the Flight Operations Inspectorate (Aeroplanes) and encountered a handful of similar situations. The process I describe below may not be followed exactly with TCX as there are several variables to be considered - but this is how it might proceed.

Because an AOC is valid on a Sunday (for example) it doesn't mean that it must be suspended on the Monday, for if an airline was considered by the CAA to have been safe to operate commercial air transport yesterday it is unlikely to have suddenly become unsafe overnight. Essentially, what needs to remain in place are the previously existing required post holders (and crews) and support from the approved maintenance organisation (MO). Therefore, provided the Authority receives assurances from the AOC holder that these remain in place, commercial air transport safety will probably not be considered at risk - for a time.

This means that the air operator may continue to fly his aircraft with his crews, maintained by the approved MO, with the aim of at least returning the aircraft to where he wants them to be and to carry passengers whilst doing so. The AOC is all about safety, and for as long as the CAA retains confidence that safety will not be compromised then the AOC can remain active. [This has nothing to do with the practicalities of flying away from home or maintenance base, for after landing at other airfields it is quite possible that the airport authorities may 'clamp' the aeroplane for as long as it takes them to be paid any dues outstanding, such as handling fees and air navigation service charges.]

What then happens, when all the aircraft are back where the administrators want them to be is that the Authority will in discussion with them learn what future the operator has (if any). Often, the administrator will express a desire not to forgo the AOC believing that it has some value: it doesn't! Within a few days of the collapse of the airline, and if there is little or no chance that it will be able to return to operations in the short term, the administrators will be invited to surrender the AOC voluntarily, asking that the Authority should place it in Suspension and learn from the latter what would be required for this to be lifted. This serves the interests of both parties: the administrators as it relieves them of certain charges, and the Authority because it saves them the paperwork exercise of giving 'Notice to Suspend' (or even 'Provisional Suspension' which is immediate but must still be accompanied by the aforementioned 'Notice'.) Once the AOC has been received by the Authority and the Suspension letter received by the administrators, the Authority can cease having to provide safety oversight. The final stage, 'Revocation', doesn't have to be done in a hurry but can follow following further discussions with the administrators when it is absolutely clear that the operator will not be able to ask that the Suspension be lifted.

Please believe me when I say that the Authority will endeavour to handle this whole process with sympathy and understanding. Before joining the UK CAA in 1982 I was a BAC 1-11 Captain with Laker Airways and so understand completely many of the emotions that must be assailing all those who find that their employer has suddenly ceased training. To those who were employed as aircrew with Thomas Cook I can only say that, bleak though the picture might seem right now, your experience as flight or cabin crew should stand you in good stead for new employment with another operator, quite possibly sooner than you might think. If your experience mirrors mine, you will find those in the industry to whom you come into contact sympathetic to the situation you are in and willing to help you if they possibly can. Take heart!

deepknight
23rd Sep 2019, 14:26
When Air Berlin went down the tubes the German Government put in enough money to allow a controlled run down. I believe they thought this the cheapest way to proceed. Looking at the figures above bailing out Thomas Cook long term was not a sensible option.

It WOULD however be sensible to put in enough money to allow its fleet to operate whilst holiday makers and ticket holders are repatriated. It would be cheaper and easier than chartering every spare jet in Europe!
It would, but under UK insolvency law the company cannot continue to operate its assets.

vctenderness
23rd Sep 2019, 14:27
What’s the make up and age of the Thomas Cook Fleet? Are they company owned or on leases?

GordonR_Cape
23rd Sep 2019, 14:54
I would think there would be some keen takers of their B757-200/300

According to Wikipedia the Thomas Cook fleet is entirely Airbus A321/A330. The B757s were sold to Condor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook_Airlines

tubby linton
23rd Sep 2019, 15:15
Whatís the make up and age of the Thomas Cook Fleet? Are they company owned or on leases?
Jethro has some of the answers. https://www.jethros.org.uk/fleets/fleet_listings/thomas_cook_airlines_uk.htm

ASRAAMTOO
23rd Sep 2019, 15:35
It would, but under UK insolvency law the company cannot continue to operate its assets.

But presumably the appointed administrator can? Many UK retail outlets that went under were run by their administrators for extended periods to maximise the return to creditors.

ShamrockF
23rd Sep 2019, 15:54
But presumably the appointed administrator can? Many UK retail outlets that went under were run by their administrators for extended periods to maximise the return to creditors.
General retail outlets aren't affected by the amount of rules and regulations affecting an airline and travel agency. An insolvency practitioner is not likely to have the qualifications to take on a nominated person role to take an AOC and keep it active for a period of time. A retail shop is much easier to run.

fantom
23rd Sep 2019, 15:57
Anyway, how is it the Germans are still flying and we are not ?

WeMadeYou
23rd Sep 2019, 16:07
We'll see. There are pressure groups in certain European countries (especially one) that are so obsessed with their climate saving hysteria that they don't want people to travel and fly any more at all.
There have already been voices that welcome Thomas Cook's demise because of this.
A crazy world we're living in.


Especially one? do you mean climate hysteria in UK is so bad it made Thomas Cook go bankrupt?

kenparry
23rd Sep 2019, 16:09
Anyway, how is it the Germans are still flying and we are not ?

Differences in company law. The Germans allow the failed airline to do rescue flights, but UK law does not.

wiggy
23rd Sep 2019, 16:32
But presumably the appointed administrator can? Many UK retail outlets that went under were run by their administrators for extended periods to maximise the return to creditors.

Genuine question w 'cos I can't find the answer - Did Thomas Cook ever go into administration, (where there might have been options to continue running in some way shape or form) or did they move straight into liquidation?

kenparry
23rd Sep 2019, 17:04
The BBC report describes it as "Compulsory administration"

RoyHudd
23rd Sep 2019, 17:23
Do the Condor aircraft run the risk of being impounded away from base for Thomas Cook Group non-payment of airport/fuel charges, etc? They operate to many similar destinations as TCUK did, such as CUN, MCO and the like.

And is the Premiair fleet still operating? If so, same question applies.

Joe le Taxi
23rd Sep 2019, 17:26
Direct to liquidation Thomas Cook Group PLC Compulsory liquidation of Thomas Cook Group plc 23/09/2019 7:01am UK Regulatory (RNS & others)

wiggy
23rd Sep 2019, 17:26
Thanks Joe.

gnarlberg
23rd Sep 2019, 17:40
Condor is still flying because they still got money. Managers could see this coming and didn't send as much money of their profit( 43.000.000€) 2018 to Thomas Cook as they years 16 17 etc.... So they have cash on their bankaccount because the CEOs first have to save their own company, then their holding.
So Condor is not bankrupt yet. They are still flying scheduled flights (NOT RESCUE FLIGHTS!).
They applied for a government loan and hope to get it so they can sell Condor and make some money or find a solution outside of Thomas Cook .

MathFox
23rd Sep 2019, 17:43
The German operation is in a different company (different legal entity), that is not yet bankrupt. They could in theory operate for years and years to come, as long as they have sufficient funds and income to pay their bills.
There are two options for the administrators of Thomas Cook UK wrt. each foreign subsidiary:

keep it running and try to sell the subsidiary to an interested party
shut it down and liquidate it to stop the losses

Option 1 could bring in significant money, if the subsidiary is profitable.

md80forum
23rd Sep 2019, 20:49
Swedish travel group Ving, member of the Thomas Cook group, reports that Thomas Cook Scandinavia will resume flights Tuesday at least in Sweden.

ironbutt57
24th Sep 2019, 00:50
Gulf Air in Bahrain is actively recruiting 320 Capts..the roster is no picnic, but a reasonably comfortable family life can be had and the aircraft are mostly new...

TempoTCu
24th Sep 2019, 02:33
Everyone affected by TC needs to calm down a little bit - clearly they're not as hard done by as this poor person... What on earth will she do with her 45k followers now???

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/flights/thomas-cook-heartbroken-former-employees-take-to-social-media-as-travel-firm-collapses/news-story/54072e3cfc888c950deffd2aaf510ba1

Oh the injustice.

lederhosen
24th Sep 2019, 04:45
Thomas Cook in its current form was always going to be a challenge to turn around. Vertical integration and size were match winners at the end of the last century. Clearly times move on and the long running structural and financial troubles resulting in unsustainable levels of debt have led to the current situation. Brexit uncertainty has also played a role. Whether this is the first big casualty I am not sure. But the current UK government is quick to attack management. I suspect they are very keen to move the dialogue away from why exactly foreign investors have been hesitant to invest what seem relatively small sums to save the company.

Harry Wayfarers
24th Sep 2019, 05:14
The days of package tour operators and travel agents are numbered.

Itís a lot cheaper for most people to book their flights and hotels online.

But travel agents are online, just goggle for the Wiki page of 'Expedia Group' just to realise how terribly they are doing, they are doing so terribly that in two recent hotel bookings Expedia gave me 11% cashback whilst ebookers gave me 12% cashback.

Two local airlines to me are Air Asia Zest and Philippine Airlines, it is regularly cheaper for me to book flights thru travel agent 'trip dot com' that it is to book with these airlines directly.

SMT Member
24th Sep 2019, 05:50
Anyway, how is it the Germans are still flying and we are not ?

For the same reason the Nordic arm of TC is back up and flying: They're running a profitable shop, TCUK was not.

alwayzinit
24th Sep 2019, 07:53
Hi TCX guys and gals.
I cannot access your closed forum, however, here are the details of an EK (Emirates) Roadshow being held in Manchester on Weds this week.

Manchester: Radisson Blu Hotel Manchester Airport, Chicago Ave, Manchester M90 3RA, UK



25th September2019

10:00am

14:00pm



26th September 2019

10:00am

Best of luck to you all at this ****ty time.

Alwayz

PS there will be a LGW Roadshow next month too.
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10577940)

WHBM
24th Sep 2019, 08:28
For the same reason the Nordic arm of TC is back up and flying: They're running a profitable shop, TCUK was not.
Actually the day-to-day operational side of all the parts were similarly OK. The issue is where the huge unrepayable loans were. These all appear to have been with the UK company, despite that part of the big borrowing stemmed from money to buy the German and Scandinavian operations. Of course, they had done the same to buy UK companies as well.

It's actually not possible to lose the sums being bandied around here on your daily operations. It comes from big loans to buy out other companies, and being unable to pay them back. There's been a lot of inter-group trading and exchange of cash (or not), it seems that the German and Scandinavian operations have not been remitting their cash back to the UK parent (part of the investigation of the directors' actions will focus on this), could be for a number of reasons, even a hope to sell them off as going concerns (which may still happen) but this has allowed them to remain legally solvent and continue trading, although surely their bookings must be taking a hit.

EAM
24th Sep 2019, 08:30
For the same reason the Nordic arm of TC is back up and flying: They're running a profitable shop, TCUK was not.

If they are profitable, why are they asking for 200 million from the government?

Greek God
24th Sep 2019, 08:57
Was watching this morning where TC Capt was being interviewed. Very sad for all but especially the crew stuck downroute with no ATOL protection. Would appear to essentially have been left on their own. All company communication ceased and he mentioned a well know UK carrier (BA?) wanting to charge 10k for each of 4 seats left back to the UK. Shocking. Eventually Virgin stepped up.
Feel gutted for everyone.

A320baby
24th Sep 2019, 09:59
Greek god, Virgin stepped up from the get go! Immediately! I think itís absolutely shameful what BA are doing!

My condolences for everyone at Thomas cook, it was a great place to work I hope you guys find work very very soon.

ana36
24th Sep 2019, 10:25
Hi everyone ...can you help me regarding an issue ...i have booked holiday for 2020 June with Thomas Cook all package ATOL protected. I have direct debits with them of 150 pounds per month.If i cancel the direct debit will my ATOL protected be affected ? Am i the one breaking the contract ?? I already paied 700 pounds that i want back with ATOL later on.Can they refuse to give them back if i cancel the direct debit?? Please help as i don't want to pay anymore for a cancelled holiday .Thank you all

GrahamO
24th Sep 2019, 10:52
It WOULD however be sensible to put in enough money to allow its fleet to operate whilst holiday makers and ticket holders are repatriated. It would be cheaper and easier than chartering every spare jet in Europe!

Not as a taxpayer it isn't.

The costs of rescuing the poor individuals is borne by insurers and the like. If the government rescues them, then the taxpayer is on the hook.

Remember all the fuss about bailing out the banks (private profits, socialise the losses) ? In this case, the private sector carries 100% of the can as it should be.

mickjoebill
24th Sep 2019, 11:05
Reports that 40 aircraft will be chartered. Is this a hard task? What is the availability of commercial passenger aircraft and crew ?

mjb

The Ancient Geek
24th Sep 2019, 11:20
Reports that 40 aircraft will be chartered. Is this a hard task? What is the availability of commercial passenger aircraft and crew ?

Plenty of capacity available at the moment, it might be an issue during peak season but September/October is always a quiet time.

Diavel
24th Sep 2019, 13:10
Swedish travel group Ving, member of the Thomas Cook group, reports that Thomas Cook Scandinavia will resume flights Tuesday at least in Sweden.
is not a swedish , but a danish charter airline based at CPH

san diego
24th Sep 2019, 13:41
To Ana36, stop your direct debits immediately. Your claim under ATOL is for the amount paid up to the date of failure. Make sure you have all the receipts, The CAA has indicated that the claims system will be running by September 30 and they aim to pay everyone with valid claims within 2 months

Ancient Mariner
24th Sep 2019, 13:45
is not a swedish , but a danish charter airline based at CPH
Don't know about that, but you have Ving AB in Sweden, Ving AS in Norway, Tjšreborg in Finland and Spies in Denmark. All apparently well run and making money.
Per

standbykid
24th Sep 2019, 14:53
All company communication ceased and he mentioned a well know UK carrier (BA?) wanting to charge 10k for each of 4 seats left back to the UK. Shocking. Eventually Virgin stepped up.
Feel gutted for everyone.
Is this true? If so, they (BA) just lost me as a customer.

BRE
24th Sep 2019, 16:01
Condor is still flying because they still got money. Managers could see this coming and didn't send as much money of their profit( 43.000.000Ä) 2018 to Thomas Cook as they years 16 17 etc.... So they have cash on their bankaccount because the CEOs first have to save their own company, then their holding.
So Condor is not bankrupt yet. They are still flying scheduled flights (NOT RESCUE FLIGHTS!).
They applied for a government loan and hope to get it so they can sell Condor and make some money or find a solution outside of Thomas Cook .

Reporting was that they had extended credit to their holding company. If true, that would be gone now.

Also, half of their revenue is with TC package tours, and they were not allowed to take pax on package tours any longer, just those that had booked just the flight. This is going to hit them really fast.

And lastly, eight of their A321 and one A330 are listed as operated by TC Aviation or TC Airlines. What about those?

gearlever
24th Sep 2019, 18:29
Bad luck for Pax out of Orlando.

Atlas B744 over Atlantic on Sep 23rd 2019, system malfunction (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd36693&opt=0)

bill fly
24th Sep 2019, 20:21
Looks as though the German government is helping to the tune of 380 million Euros.

pabloc
24th Sep 2019, 21:29
Letís get this viral!!!!
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/466x960/895be0b2_58ee_4fbc_826b_5be10b09ed97_993e149233df1d7ce78abc2 683fcf3738c123f20.jpeg

DaveReidUK
24th Sep 2019, 21:46
Is this true? If so, they (BA) just lost me as a customer.

No, it's wrong/misleading on several counts (no surprise, given that it came from the Sun).

So you can safely continue to fly BA. :O

ShotOne
24th Sep 2019, 21:58
No, FIRESYS nobody asking BA to sell tickets below market value, just allow the use of otherwise empty seats at no cost to themselves. Despicable and Iím ashamed they call themselves Britainís flag carrier. Dave, I was informed of this by a fellow pilot in BA who was disgusted. Perhaps you would elaborate on your claim itís untrue?

Re the Cuban hostage situation: come on: just what is our government doing?

macdo
24th Sep 2019, 22:03
No, it's wrong/misleading on several counts (no surprise, given that it came from the Sun).

So you can safely continue to fly BA. :O

sorry, true. BA investigating. Other bases were helpful.

pabloc
24th Sep 2019, 22:44
No, FIRESYS nobody asking BA to sell tickets below market value, just allow the use of otherwise empty seats at no cost to themselves. Despicable and Iím ashamed they call themselves Britainís flag carrier. Dave, I was informed of this by a fellow pilot in BA who was disgusted. Perhaps you would elaborate on your claim itís untrue?

Re the Cuban hostage situation: come on: just what is our government doing?
British Embassy have been to hotel to pay but hotel refused the credit card!!!

DaveReidUK
24th Sep 2019, 22:48
Piecing together other, less histrionic reports than the Sun's, while BA were certainly inflexible and unhelpful it seems likely that the situation resulted from a combination of "computer says no" and one or more jobsworths within the organisation, rather than malice or bl**dy-mindedness on BA's part.

Strictly speaking (and sadly) by the time the TCX CC were attempting to get back to the UK on BA, they were civilians and no longer airline employees. So while BA could have bent the rules and still given them jump seats (probably without any comeback) the chances are that such a decision was above the pay grade of whoever was asked to make it.

As for the "extortionate" £10K for a seat (actually $10,000), well yes it's extortionate, but that's pretty much what you pay as a walk-up on LAS/LHR in business class (Y was full on the flight in question). Of course the Sun conveniently forgot to mention that fact. :O

Anyway, regardless of the rights and wrongs, it's good to hear that Virgin were able to take a more enlightened attitude.

sorry, true. BA investigating.

Yes, of course they are, having scored a spectacular PR own-goal.

clivegore
24th Sep 2019, 23:31
Nobody on here has mentioned that the credit card companies were holding back £50 million from tcx . This is outrageous that they can just refuse to hand over the cash and cause the business to become insolvent.

etudiant
25th Sep 2019, 00:37
Interesting that the German government has now approved a 380MM Euro credit for Condor even as that carrier files for bankruptcy, while the rescue of TC apparently failed because of a last minute request for an additional 200MM Sterling.
Considering the human cost of this collapse, it is unfortunate that the governments involved don't seem to communicate especially well.

YRP
25th Sep 2019, 02:18
Nobody on here has mentioned that the credit card companies were holding back £50 million from tcx . This is outrageous that they can just refuse to hand over the cash and cause the business to become insolvent.

I'll bet the credit card companies are on the hook for a whole pile more than this for customer refunds of prepaid future holidays with TCX.

I'm not sure the payment arrangement between credit card companies and travel companies, but if they pay TCX ahead of the actual holiday, they are effectively extending credit to TCX. At some point with writing on wall, they say no more bad money after good.

A320baby
25th Sep 2019, 05:56
Permission was granted by the CAA to allow airlines to allow jump seats if needed to get stranded crew members home! I guess BA never got the memo.

cessnapete
25th Sep 2019, 06:33
Permission was granted by the CAA to allow airlines to allow jump seats if needed to get stranded crew members home! I guess BA never got the memo.

Thatís the way that BA treats ifs own crew. Why would they help other Airlines crew? Itís BA management style now.

wiggy
25th Sep 2019, 07:25
To be fair to BA (just this once ;)) from what I'm hearing the controversy over the $10,000 tickets seems to have been generated by certain people not getting the memo, rather than corporate policy dictated at Head Office... Of course once the now infamous tweet was out there the story grew via MSM and in a PR battle between Virgin and BA there's only going to be one winner.

Mike Flynn
25th Sep 2019, 08:27
Glasgow airport has impounded four TC aircraft against fees owed.

However my understanding is that if the aircraft are leased or on finance they have no claim.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x710/e3a149c3_7d92_4fea_85a6_6199db4d6d0c_b247010de916f9a35627790 175a3ec050de4b92c.jpeg

WHBM
25th Sep 2019, 08:41
Nobody on here has mentioned that the credit card companies were holding back £50 million from tcx . This is outrageous that they can just refuse to hand over the cash and cause the business to become insolvent.
This is standard practice as agreed between the CC company and the merchant as part of their initial contract. The CC company keeps a proportion of advance payments (holidays and air tickets being a classic example) until the service is delivered, in case it has not been and the CC company is then on the hook for the refund. Thomas Cook would have known exactly what the Holdback percentages were and how they are varied.

Mr @ Spotty M
25th Sep 2019, 09:05
I see that TCG had a balance sheet deficiency in excess of £3.1 billion.

Old and Horrified
25th Sep 2019, 09:27
Regarding the BA situation - they have always charged hugely for single flights. Before the failure I checked for my son who is stuck in SFO. A single flight back with BA SFO to LHR was over $2000, whilst a return was only half of that, I have never understood that logic.

Anyway, full marks to BA reservations yesterday who very quickly offered him a free flight on the right day to LHR as per the CAA arrangements.

BRE
25th Sep 2019, 10:05
From slate: "On Monday, the U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority began organizing for British tourists to be flown back. The CAA said it expects to run 1,000 flights from 55 destinations to retrieve the British passengers."

1000 flights x 200 pax = 10,000 pax out of 150,000 stranded? And a 200 average is generous unless they are getting a signficant number of 747/A380 in the mix.

romiglups
25th Sep 2019, 10:17
From slate: "On Monday, the U.K.ís Civil Aviation Authority began organizing for British tourists to be flown back. The CAA said it expects to run 1,000 flights from 55 destinations to retrieve the British passengers."

1000 flights x 200 pax = 10,000 pax out of 150,000 stranded? And a 200 average is generous unless they are getting a signficant number of 747/A380 in the mix.

1000 x 200 = 200 000

renfrew
25th Sep 2019, 10:22
And there are 2 A-380s being used from Malaysian and Hi Fly.

DaveReidUK
25th Sep 2019, 11:05
Glasgow airport has impounded four TC aircraft against fees owed.
However my understanding is that if the aircraft are leased or on finance they have no claim.

"Any airport owned or managed by any government department, the British Airports Authority (BAA) or a local authority and any airport designated for these purposes by the Secretary of State may under s.88 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 detain any aircraft belonging to or operated by a person where that person has failed to pay airport charges. As with navigation charges, this is the case even if the charges relate to another aircraft owned or operated by that person. An aircraft may be detained for charges incurred in relation to it by a previous operator as the charges will follow the aircraft if not paid."

jmmoric
25th Sep 2019, 12:19
And there are 2 A-380s being used from Malaysian and Hi Fly.

Hi Fly own A380??

wigyori
25th Sep 2019, 12:27
It's Hi Fly Malta which actually has the A380, but yes, they do have. (That's the "coral reef" livery.)

-w-

763 jock
25th Sep 2019, 18:01
We are all one Thomas Cook. Yeah right....

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jobless-thomas-cook-staff-furious-20175136

Airbubba
25th Sep 2019, 18:12
Here's a map of the repatriation flights:

Thomas Cook Repatriation Flights (24 September 2019) - Featured Map - Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/featured/20190924)

kildress
25th Sep 2019, 18:28
We are all one Thomas Cook. Yeah right....

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jobless-thomas-cook-staff-furious-20175136
Minority (albeit 49%) owned by TC. Bloody right to celebrate that they haven't yet been dragged down by a major shareholder. Would it be better for anyone that had also failed?

DaveReidUK
25th Sep 2019, 20:03
Here's a map of the repatriation flights:

Thomas Cook Repatriation Flights (24 September 2019) - Featured Map - Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/featured/20190924)

Nice graphic, though it omits some flights operated yesterday by Titan.

alfalpha
25th Sep 2019, 22:30
Nice graphic, though it omits some flights operated yesterday by Titan.
And also omits flights by Tui.

Whitemonk Returns
25th Sep 2019, 22:54
Jet2 have also been operating some of the Titan flights today

Signalman
26th Sep 2019, 00:00
"Any airport owned or managed by any government department, the British Airports Authority (BAA) or a local authority and any airport designated for these purposes by the Secretary of State may under s.88 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 detain any aircraft belonging to or operated by a person where that person has failed to pay airport charges. As with navigation charges, this is the case even if the charges relate to another aircraft owned or operated by that person. An aircraft may be detained for charges incurred in relation to it by a previous operator as the charges will follow the aircraft if not paid."

As TC has no money, and i assume that the airports are an unsecured creditor so pretty low down the list when it comes to allocating any available funds, will the leasing comanies have to pay what could be the last 3 months worth of charges ( assume they are on 90 days credit terms) for each a/c before they can re lease them ?

Denti
26th Sep 2019, 05:24
Minority (albeit 49%) owned by TC. Bloody right to celebrate that they haven't yet been dragged down by a major shareholder. Would it be better for anyone that had also failed?
According to their own profile Condor is 100% owned by the Thomas Cook GmbH, which is a 100% subsidiary of the Thomas Cook plc and itself in insolvency now. Condor however applies for a so called "Schutzschirm" (protective shield) which will insulate it against demands from TC or its administrators and part of german insolvency law.

If they will survive in the end is a different matter, but at least they have a chance to be sold off, either in parts or whole. Or just their slots which are their main assets after all.

Pearly White
26th Sep 2019, 05:28
I believe I am correct in saying that the administrator can agree to pay off outstanding airport charges, including landing fees, if there is insufficient capacity, in order to free up TC aircraft to be used for repatriation purposes.
I don't think that's the case at all. Not up with UK Administration Law but here in the colonies that would not be an option - and in any case it seems dubious the administrator would agree to continue trading. It's on them, and their insurers, to underwrite any further losses, which seem very likely, so, no, sorry.

Bidule
26th Sep 2019, 05:57
".... any aircraft belonging to or operated by a person where that person has failed to pay airport charges. "

From a legal point of view, the person that failed to pay airport charges is not the owner/lessor of the aircraft; so, an airport cannot detain the aircraft not owned by TC. The airport should have detained the aircraft before the insolvency.

For the navigation charges, it is different because
".... An aircraft may be detained for charges incurred in relation to it by a previous operator as the charges will follow the aircraft if not paid. "

DaveReidUK
26th Sep 2019, 06:33
From a legal point of view, the person that failed to pay airport charges is not the owner/lessor of the aircraft; so, an airport cannot detain the aircraft not owned by TC.

IANAL, but the relevant legislation (Civil Aviation Act 1982, s.88) appears to explicitly give the airport that power:

(1) Where default is made in the payment of airport charges incurred in respect of any aircraft at an aerodrome to which this section applies, the aerodrome authority may, subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) detain, pending payment, either—

(i) the aircraft in respect of which the charges were incurred (whether or not they were incurred by the person who is the operator of the aircraft at the time when the detention begins); or

(ii) any other aircraft of which the person in default is the operator at the time when the detention begins; and

Why do you think LGW has reportedly positioned snowploughs behind every TCX parked aircraft ?

booze
26th Sep 2019, 07:23
It's like the landlord impounding my car on lease from Avis due not paying rent?! Sounds ridiculous, but that is exactly what happened to an ex-WOW A321 in KEF.

Mike Flynn
26th Sep 2019, 07:24
Do leasing companies insure for this sort of event?

Spudder
26th Sep 2019, 08:05
Rumours going around that €60m was transferred from Thomas Cook PLC to Condor days before the collapse. Does anybody have any more information?

ShotOne
26th Sep 2019, 08:17
Yes I believe so, I was given the figure 68 million. And former boss Christoph Debus slipped into a newly invented post at Condor on the final day adding an extra level of management. So all the airlines which until Monday belonged to Thomas Cook, are still flying, crews fully paid :sole exemption TC UK

jmmoric
26th Sep 2019, 10:36
Yes I believe so, I was given the figure 68 million. And former boss Christoph Debus slipped into a newly invented post at Condor on the final day adding an extra level of management. So all the airlines which until Monday belonged to Thomas Cook, are still flying, crews fully paid :sole exemption TC UK

I feel for the crews in the UK, on the other hand, it's good if you can find a constellation where more healthy parts of the company can keep running, and not end up breaking everything down. For the sake of people still working.

RoyHudd
26th Sep 2019, 10:40
Profits from late 2018 onwards from the German and ~Scandinavian affiliates were never repatriated to TCG. Their books were kept artificially positive as part of the plan to hive off these "companies" on the open market. They ended up cash-rich. No such luck for Thomas Cook UK, although their senior management took very good care of themselves. By coincidence they are German and Swiss-German people, who still find themselves in highly-paid employment in Germany.

The clever liquidators have dismissed the aircraft engineers, thereby preventing routine time-dependent maintenance and upkeep on the aircraft now impounded. They will not be legal to be flown back to the leasing companies, thereby further inflating the debt due to parking charges and ultimately heavy maintenance. Debus and co didn't bother to look after this detail, nor after the well-being of the dismissed employees.

The leasing companies want their aircraft returned to them in the condition in which they were supplied to TCX UK. This apparently will require something of the order of 40 engine changes. Unbelievable.

And as for Condor, they are opening up new routes from the UK to former TCX UK destinations. Tickets are already on public sale. Problems may be anticipated as they attempt to operate said flights out of the UK.

Brexit has nothing whatever to do with this shambles. Blame avaricious management, some of whom may ultimately face criminal charges in the UK courts. In fact, if one looks at how disgracefully the German and Scandinavians have acted, one could argue that this is an example of why the UK is better out of Europe. (not my personal view, btw)

parabellum
26th Sep 2019, 11:48
I don't think that's the case at all. Not up with UK Administration Law but here in the colonies that would not be an option - and in any case it seems dubious the administrator would agree to continue trading. It's on them, and their insurers, to underwrite any further losses, which seem very likely, so, no, sorry.

Possibly not repatriation, if that constitutes trading, but I have actually been involved in the return and repositioning of aircraft, though not as crew, and all costs, including insurance were down to the administrators, who where, for the very short period involved, the employers.

SOPS
26th Sep 2019, 11:58
The leasing companies want their aircraft returned to them in the condition in which they were supplied to TCX UK. This apparently will require something of the order of 40 engine changes. Unbelievable.


In my past life as a pilot, I have been through returning aircraft back to a leasing company. And the paper trail is huge. And the above poster is correct .. they MUST be returned as they were delivered.. and as I said.. the paper work must confirm it all.

procede
26th Sep 2019, 13:56
The leasing companies want their aircraft returned to them in the condition in which they were supplied to TCX UK. This apparently will require something of the order of 40 engine changes. Unbelievable.

In my past life as a pilot, I have been through returning aircraft back to a leasing company. And the paper trail is huge. And the above poster is correct .. they MUST be returned as they were delivered.. and as I said.. the paper work must confirm it all.

Aren't the engines usually leased separately from the airframe?

andrasz
26th Sep 2019, 14:33
Aren't the engines usually leased separately from the airframe?

Have seen plenty of airframe lease contracts complete with engines, and also ones without. In any case, return conditions are carefully specified and usually must be as or better than delivery condition. With on-condition engines that can be a tricky affair.

Astir 511
26th Sep 2019, 15:28
The leasing companies want their aircraft returned to them in the condition in which they were supplied to TCX UK. This apparently will require something of the order of 40 engine changes. Unbelievable.


In my past life as a pilot, I have been through returning aircraft back to a leasing company. And the paper trail is huge. And the above poster is correct .. they MUST be returned as they were delivered.. and as I said.. the paper work must confirm it all.
The on wing engines will be in a condition that (subject to ongoing maintenance) will allow them to continue in service. The Lease Return Conditions that "Require 40 Engine Changes" are purely to meet Lease Return Conditions (LLP Stack Remaining Life, and Workshop TBO)
The aircraft are being re-possessed by Lessors, and any claims they may have will be subject to the usual process of Administration and they will receive practically nothing.
However the Lessors will have amassed Maintenance Reserves (Normal Ongoing Lease Contract contributions to future Maintenance costs at lease termination) so they will not be overly exposed financially

750XL
26th Sep 2019, 16:05
And as for Condor, they are opening up new routes from the UK to former TCX UK destinations. Tickets are already on public sale. Problems may be anticipated as they attempt to operate said flights out of the UK.



What routes, and where are these bookable?

Mike Flynn
26th Sep 2019, 18:32
The on wing engines will be in a condition that (subject to ongoing maintenance) will allow them to continue in service. The Lease Return Conditions that "Require 40 Engine Changes" are purely to meet Lease Return Conditions (LLP Stack Remaining Life, and Workshop TBO)
The aircraft are being re-possessed by Lessors, and any claims they may have will be subject to the usual process of Administration and they will receive practically nothing.
However the Lessors will have amassed Maintenance Reserves (Normal Ongoing Lease Contract contributions to future Maintenance costs at lease termination) so they will not be overly exposed financially
Which in laymans terms means they have an inbuilt insurance to this risk?

CargoOne
26th Sep 2019, 18:56
However the Lessors will have amassed Maintenance Reserves (Normal Ongoing Lease Contract contributions to future Maintenance costs at lease termination) so they will not be overly exposed financially

Not in Thomas Cook case - they did not paid cash reserves, so Lessors are heavily exposed on engines.

ExpectmorePayless
26th Sep 2019, 19:20
I'm very surprised the administrator's of TCG cannot take legal action to recoup the unpaid debt from those subsidiaries which are still trading.
They are duty bound to obtain as much as possible for creditors. While Limited company status can attempt to ring fence exposure to claims, TCG was the parent company. Something very underhand if siphoning off money from one company into another is allowed only for 3 companies to continue trading while the debt is left with the collapsed company.

There would appear to be sufficient evidence of malpractice by the current and previous director's to warrant criminal proceedings.
And even investigation of the auditor since there must come a point at which the level of debt becomes unsustainable and a risk to the travelling consumer.

Mr @ Spotty M
26th Sep 2019, 21:17
Some of the 40 required engine changes will be to reunite the correct engine serial numbers with the correct airframe serial number.

JammedStab
26th Sep 2019, 21:33
Hate to see all those jobs lost.

SMT Member
27th Sep 2019, 05:19
In fact, if one looks at how disgracefully the German and Scandinavians have acted, one could argue that this is an example of why the UK is better out of Europe. (not my personal view, btw)

Care to elaborate on how they've acted "disgracefully". By keeping operating and paying staff their wages?

Airbanda
27th Sep 2019, 07:04
Jet2 are trying to cash in. Tried to book flights back from Lanzarote for next Jan as we were booked with TCX. Got all the details in and told price was circa £4700 (8 people). Went to the pay now page and they stated price had risen to £7600 due to demand. I can see many people will panic and just pay it. Fortunately TUI offered much fairer price

Jet 2 are not only operator being accused of 'cashing in' with silly prices. Probably a relatively short term issue where there's a rush of bookings far higher than normal movement at this time of year and the algorithm responds by upping the price.

Would be interesting to see what J2 would have quoted if you'd left it for a day or two.

beardy
27th Sep 2019, 07:06
Care to elaborate on how they've acted "disgracefully". By keeping operating and paying staff their wages?
Perhaps it is worth re-reading the post you quote from and considering how many and which elements of the company kept operating and how they became cash healthy.

Astir 511
27th Sep 2019, 11:19
Which in laymans terms means they have an inbuilt insurance to this risk?

Yes, Albeit they may not be fully covered, but the majority will be.

Astir 511
27th Sep 2019, 11:23
That surprises me, but if you are familiar with the specifics, and this is true, the lessors are heavily exposed.

bill fly
27th Sep 2019, 12:54
Perhaps it is worth re-reading the post you quote from and considering how many and which elements of the company kept operating and how they became cash healthy.

Condor gets the state cash injection but Thomas Cook Germany files for bancruptcy.

Global_Global
27th Sep 2019, 12:54
Jet 2 are not only operator being accused of 'cashing in' with silly prices. Probably a relatively short term issue where there's a rush of bookings far higher than normal movement at this time of year and the algorithm responds by upping the price.

Yep, agree. I hate these stupid replies to supply and demand issues.. From the Daily mail ok but not from people in the industry. You should know how it works and yes if the demand doubles you will be toast pricewise..

ATC Watcher
27th Sep 2019, 13:43
RoyHudd :
Profits from late 2018 onwards from the German and ~Scandinavian affiliates were never repatriated to TCG. Their books were kept artificially positive as part of the plan to hive off these "companies" on the open market. They ended up cash-rich.
well it looks like it is not that simple after all :
Yesterday Condor received a guarantee from the German government and the Hessian State Government for six-month bridge loan in the amount of 380 million EUR. This is also subject to approval by the European Commission, at which point the loan can be disbursed.
This was done in order to prevent liquidity issues at Condor, resulting from the insolvency of their parent company. [...] Condor as such was profitable, but that doesn’t mean they had the liquidity necessary to operate

source : https://onemileatatime.com/condor-airlines-future/

SMT Member
27th Sep 2019, 14:57
Perhaps it is worth re-reading the post you quote from and considering how many and which elements of the company kept operating and how they became cash healthy.

I have, and it seemed to indicate the mothership (TCUK) did not wish to repatriate the funds in order to make TCNE and TCDE look good for prospective buyers. That TCUK saddled itself up with a mountain of debt when they bought the German and Nordic travel agencies, and subsequently 'fudged' the books to make them look attractive, is hardly something you can blame either the Nordic or German entities for.

Seems to me, that senior management at TCUK got themselves into a position they couldn't handle, saddled the company with debt it couldn't repay, and then went bankrupt. But, sure, blame someone else if that makes you feel better. I, on the other hand, am only happy that our fellow airline employees in Germany and Denmark are still able to go to work and collect a pay check, whilst of course feeling immensely sad for the innocent staff at TCUK, who lost their jobs because management was not up to the task of running the company.

beardy
27th Sep 2019, 18:06
I have, and it seemed to indicate the mothership (TCUK) did not wish to repatriate the funds in order to make TCNE and TCDE look good for prospective buyers. That TCUK saddled itself up with a mountain of debt when they bought the German and Nordic travel agencies, and subsequently 'fudged' the books to make them look attractive, is hardly something you can blame either the Nordic or German entities for.

Seems to me, that senior management at TCUK got themselves into a position they couldn't handle, saddled the company with debt it couldn't repay, and then went bankrupt. But, sure, blame someone else if that makes you feel better. I, on the other hand, am only happy that our fellow airline employees in Germany and Denmark are still able to go to work and collect a pay check, whilst of course feeling immensely sad for the innocent staff at TCUK, who lost their jobs because management was not up to the task of running the company.
See, you answered your own question. Well done 👍

cessnaxpilot
27th Sep 2019, 18:12
I have, and it seemed to indicate the mothership (TCUK) did not wish to repatriate the funds in order to make TCNE and TCDE look good for prospective buyers. That TCUK saddled itself up with a mountain of debt when they bought the German and Nordic travel agencies, and subsequently 'fudged' the books to make them look attractive, is hardly something you can blame either the Nordic or German entities for.

Seems to me, that senior management at TCUK got themselves into a position they couldn't handle, saddled the company with debt it couldn't repay, and then went bankrupt. But, sure, blame someone else if that makes you feel better. I, on the other hand, am only happy that our fellow airline employees in Germany and Denmark are still able to go to work and collect a pay check, whilst of course feeling immensely sad for the innocent staff at TCUK, who lost their jobs because management was not up to the task of running the company.

Condor is a separate company. GmbH... itís not that their profits are supposed to be sent to TCUK because they are the parent company. I suppose the benefit TCUK had was they owned the stock from Condor and that has value. They are separate companies.... even if one is a subsidiary. Am I understanding this correctly?

SMT Member
28th Sep 2019, 06:49
See, you answered your own question. Well done 👍

Indeed, but I still don't understand why an utterly incompetent management at TCUK is the fault of TCDE and TCNE, let alone why that would quality them to have acted "disgracefully".

TCUK decided to have TCDE and TCNE as separate legal entities (actually, several legal entities) incorporated in Germany, Sweden and Finland. Each of those entities have a legal obligation to look after their own house first and foremost, although it's plainly obvious they would have been acting under the orders from TCUK. But when the smelly bits are fast approaching the fan, those legally responsible for those entities have a responsibility towards those first and foremost. If TCUK had wanted it another way, they should have organised themselves differently.

Fact is, the management of TCUK was incapable of running a travel agency, in stark contrast to management of the TCDE and TCNE affiliates. That's why the house came tumbling down, and the decision by TCUK management not to repatriate funds in order to prop of those entities for a possible sale, is yet another example thereof. I'm not going to say they acted criminally, but they sure as shyte were not up to the task of running the company they were entrusted with - to the detriment of their hard working and loyal employees.

beardy
28th Sep 2019, 08:02
Indeed, but I still don't understand why an utterly incompetent management at TCUK is the fault of TCDE and TCNE, let alone why that would quality them to have acted "disgracefully".

TCUK decided to have TCDE and TCNE as separate legal entities (actually, several legal entities) incorporated in Germany, Sweden and Finland. Each of those entities have a legal obligation to look after their own house first and foremost, although it's plainly obvious they would have been acting under the orders from TCUK. But when the smelly bits are fast approaching the fan, those legally responsible for those entities have a responsibility towards those first and foremost. If TCUK had wanted it another way, they should have organised themselves differently.

Fact is, the management of TCUK was incapable of running a travel agency, in stark contrast to management of the TCDE and TCNE affiliates. That's why the house came tumbling down, and the decision by TCUK management not to repatriate funds in order to prop of those entities for a possible sale, is yet another example thereof. I'm not going to say they acted criminally, but they sure as shyte were not up to the task of running the company they were entrusted with - to the detriment of their hard working and loyal employees.
I think, but am not sure, that the original comment was not about the continental companies. I think that he was referring to the individuals who were continental who badly managed TCUK and have feathered the own nests.

Big Tudor
28th Sep 2019, 08:32
TCUK did not decide what happened or otherwise with TCDE or any other part of the group. Fankhauser Debuss and co were all in Group roles and made those decisions for the group.

bill fly
28th Sep 2019, 08:55
There is Condor and then there is TC Germany. The former (airline) is being supported - the latter (travel agency) starting bankruptcy proceedings.

cessnaxpilot
28th Sep 2019, 12:54
. Each of those entities have a legal obligation to look after their own house first and foremost, although it's plainly obvious they would have been acting under the orders from TCUK..

the other companies would lose their corporate status if they took orders from TCUK. As a result, corporate protection would be lost and creditors could go after their assets as a result.

Austro767
28th Sep 2019, 14:22
One more simple answer to the question why TCUK was grounded while Condor and Scandinavia was continued is the passenger base.
TCUK had 80% TCUK passengers -> as long TC is not kept alive, there is no sense to keep an airline alive only having 20% loadfactor remaining, without having any strcutures to sell the other 80% somehow in due time.
TC Scandinavia had initially the same problem, they had 100% passengers from their nordic tour operators. But since the tour operators are continued, the airline is flying also, because it the still has its passenergs.
Condor is similar, it only has 20% TC passengers and 80% single seat and other non-TC tour operators bookings, which makes much more sense to keep them flying. If Condor is able to compensate the missing 20% TC passengers in future, they are able to survive.

regards

foxcharliep2
29th Sep 2019, 11:28
If Condor is able to compensate the missing 20% TC passengers in future, they are able to survive.

regards

I hope so for them but they need a buyer to keep them afloat and I don't see anyone coming in.

LH would only be interested in the name and the slots and I see no other suitable suitor ...

BEA 71
29th Sep 2019, 20:42
I hope so for them but they need a buyer to keep them afloat and I don't see anyone coming in.

LH would only be interested in the name and the slots and I see no other suitable suitor ...


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1440/mallorca_26_28_sep_18_8__8cef54d9693adf9e9cee9144ce3b38b6d44 7c16a.jpg

Most of the " cheapies" cruising the European skies belong to the " People Mover " category. Condor is still a airline, and is run like a airline.
I took this photo a year ago. A beautiful piece of equipment still, but also one of the problems - the Condor fleet is over aged. A buyer would
have to buy new aircraft. However, Iīll be flying on Condor in a few days, and hope it will be on this old bird.

Austro767
30th Sep 2019, 06:12
I think the fleet is not the major problem, most of the fleet is leased, they need to lease new(er) aircrafts - the cost of fleet swap is the major cost. But, you have to find a new investor putting money into a existing strategy, refund bailout, beeing at least 51% European and maintaining a good relationship to LH. A long range base in Frankfurt is only possible with a good relationship to LH, independant if LH is part of a future solution for Condor or not. They may have a chance, but its a difficult way to go.

foxcharliep2
30th Sep 2019, 06:56
A beautiful piece of equipment still, but also one of the problems - the Condor fleet is over aged. A buyer would
have to buy new aircraft..

Exactly - another problem and not attractive for LH or any other buyer.

Smooth Airperator
30th Sep 2019, 07:22
Exactly - another problem and not attractive for LH or any other buyer.

Since when do you have to BUY aircraft. More aircraft are leased than not. The brand and its reputation is worth something irrespective of fleet ownership

Dogma
30th Sep 2019, 08:29
Unfortunately the fundamentals are bad for Condor - theyíll not be on life support for long. Their business doesnít have the right stuff to warrant a risky approach to merger or otherwise.

Their FFM slots are not like those at LHR for example

4runner
30th Sep 2019, 10:44
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1440/mallorca_26_28_sep_18_8__8cef54d9693adf9e9cee9144ce3b38b6d44 7c16a.jpg

Most of the " cheapies" cruising the European skies belong to the " People Mover " category. Condor is still a airline, and is run like a airline.
I took this photo a year ago. A beautiful piece of equipment still, but also one of the problems - the Condor fleet is over aged. A buyer would
have to buy new aircraft. However, Iīll be flying on Condor in a few days, and hope it will be on this old bird.

you have a very naive, uninformed and incorrect view of aircraft and operator economics. The requirements and economics of a charter airline are sometimes inverse to a scheduled one. Many a charter company and major US airline operate 757ís profitably and reliably. Kindly keep your armchair airline management theories for your mates at the pub.

BEA 71
30th Sep 2019, 12:03
Thank you, 4Runner, my armchair airline management theories are the result of well over three decades of active airline work. My comments are not against the 757,
I am certainly well informed about aircraft economics. But there is a time, when a operation becomes too costly, and this is, according to the information available,
the case with Condorīs 757īs. If I had doubts about their reliability, I would definately not fly on them.

jonnyrobbo
30th Sep 2019, 13:43
G-TCDA flew out to Montpellier a couple of days back....

foxcharliep2
30th Sep 2019, 14:09
Since when do you have to BUY aircraft. More aircraft are leased than not. The brand and its reputation is worth something irrespective of fleet ownership

Exactly again - the brand name and reputation ( plus the slots ) are excellent for Condor and a big bonus, the ageing fleet of 75 and 76 is not.
And I don't see Condor buying or leasing newer aircraft anytime soon.
The "bridge loan" is only valid for 6 months and the buyers are not lining up outside their HQ....

BEA 71
30th Sep 2019, 20:44
Your comment is true. No line-up at their HQ. There is even strong opposition within Lufthansa, who would be the the best option for a purchase.
Even if all goes well, and they find a buyer, the biggest hurdle would be the EU watchdogs, who need to give their blessing. They are not known
for making good ( common sense ) decisions. As far as news is concerned, there is more or less total silence at this time.

WHBM
26th Oct 2019, 12:19
For those who are not operating through the various European holiday airports, and thought Thomas Cook were gone, you way be surprised to know that ops in full Thomas Cook livery continue, from departure points other than the UK. For example, 767 G-VYGK, in joint Thomas Cook-Condor branding, continues to run these routes. See here https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-vygk (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-vygk) . So that's a Cook's aircraft on the UK register and thus presumably on a UK AOC somehow.

Well done Cooks' German management, who borrowed money to buy German operators, stuck the loans on the UK company, didn't sort out adequate repayments from the continuing German operation, and when they couldn't be repaid declared the UK operation insolvent while those elsewhere continued.

Interesting to see what the receivers make of this, and what they say about the auditors' oversight of the loans back and forth. Likewise those UK holidaymakers whose trips were ruined while those from elsewhere were not.

KelvinD
26th Oct 2019, 12:32
Sadly, not long after the UK government refused to help out with a loan/guarantee of £200Million, the same government is quite happy to throw £500Million into a stupid scheme to ensure people living in rural areas can continue to watch their iPhones while strolling down the street!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50179195

dtaylor1984
26th Oct 2019, 12:55
a stupid scheme to ensure people living in rural areas can continue to watch their iPhones while strolling down the street!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50179195

What a ridiculous mischaracterisation of the scheme. The article makes no mention of wandering down the street, but of someone in their own home. The level of signal involved is not "watch[ing videos on] their iPhones" but receiving phonecalls.

And such investment has a defined benefit. Pouring £200m down the drain does not.

dc9-32
26th Oct 2019, 13:09
So that's a Cook's aircraft on the UK register and thus presumably on a UK AOC somehow.

That will be Air Tanker's AOC then.

pabloc
26th Oct 2019, 14:36
For those who are not operating through the various European holiday airports, and thought Thomas Cook were gone, you way be surprised to know that ops in full Thomas Cook livery continue, from departure points other than the UK. For example, 767 G-VYGK, in joint Thomas Cook-Condor branding, continues to run these routes. See here https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-vygk (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-vygk) . So that's a Cook's aircraft on the UK register and thus presumably on a UK AOC somehow.

Well done Cooks' German management, who borrowed money to buy German operators, stuck the loans on the UK company, didn't sort out adequate repayments from the continuing German operation, and when they couldn't be repaid declared the UK operation insolvent while those elsewhere continued.

Interesting to see what the receivers make of this, and what they say about the auditors' oversight of the loans back and forth. Likewise those UK holidaymakers whose trips were ruined while those from elsewhere were not.
AirTanker 330 ☺️ (Just being pedantic)

KelvinD
26th Oct 2019, 14:39
What a ridiculous mischaracterisation of the scheme
As is your interpretation of it. The money invested in Thomas Cook would have ensured some degree of certainty re thousands of people's jobs. Receiving phone calls in their homes, you say? BT probably already has lines to most, if not all, of those homes.
As for a defined benefit, I would like to see what that may be.

Black Pudding
26th Oct 2019, 17:11
https://www.airtanker.co.uk/leasing

WHBM
26th Oct 2019, 17:33
So that's a Cook's aircraft on the UK register and thus presumably on a UK AOC somehow.

That will be Air Tanker's AOC then.
Well I'm familiar with Air Tanker's livery. This one is just branded Thomas Cook, no mention of Air Tanker, and is bringing Thomas Cook passengers out on holiday. All on a UK registration of an airline that has gone bankrupt and wasted many people's holidays, not to mention the job loss. Doesn't really matter who the lessor is, does it ?

I wonder if it worked into a UK airport it could be seized.

Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP
26th Oct 2019, 18:26
It belongs to Air Tanker. So it cannot be seized.

And it is flying for Condor. So not Thomas Cook passengers. Thomas Cook no longer exists.

davidjpowell
26th Oct 2019, 18:59
What a ridiculous mischaracterisation of the scheme. The article makes no mention of wandering down the street, but of someone in their own home. The level of signal involved is not "watch[ing videos on] their iPhones" but receiving phonecalls.

And such investment has a defined benefit. Pouring £200m down the drain does not.

to be fair the operators have payed a blinder and got the government to pay for Half the cost which they were on the hook for already...

macdo
26th Oct 2019, 23:23
What a ridiculous mischaracterisation of the scheme. The article makes no mention of wandering down the street, but of someone in their own home. The level of signal involved is not "watch[ing videos on] their iPhones" but receiving phonecalls.

And such investment has a defined benefit. Pouring £200m down the drain does not.
So the final bill for the failure of TCG to the taxpayer is likely to be in excess of £480 million. I think 200mil in loan guarantees (just like the Germans have done) will turn out to have been a bit of a bargain. And thats before we start totting up the collateral damage to handling agents, engineering, foriegn hoteliers. O and of course the welfare of 9000 employees. Yeah, of course there was nothing to be done, just do nothing and watch the bills tot up. I can't wait to see what the final tally will be.
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/347102/expect-more-failures-ahead-of-atol-renewal

FRogge
27th Oct 2019, 06:21
Nah, TC had been struggling already for a longer time. A loan guarantee would have just pushed the bankruptcy back with X amount of months.
Different story if TC would have been a Italian flag carrier. Then you could just expect the gov to bail you out time after time.

macdo
27th Oct 2019, 13:41
Nah, TC had been struggling already for a longer time. A loan guarantee would have just pushed the bankruptcy back with X amount of months.
Different story if TC would have been a Italian flag carrier. Then you could just expect the gov to bail you out time after time.
You are half right. The tour company and the group as a whole had structural problems dating back to the merger with MYT and the CoOp shop chain. The debt mountain was, in the end, insurmountable. But, the expectation was, that the Group would enter pre-pack administration, which would have led to the profitable parts being sold off. The UK airline, after quite a few lean years, had been turned into a profitable company. (ironically the loss making airlines in Europe got bailed out). Had the government stumped up the cash to keep it going, they would have avoided the huge liability that ATOL has incurred and the fairly good chance that the airlines would have been bought by a bidder. There were bidders for the respective airlines earlier in the year, but at the time the BoD didn't think the price was enough and when the bidders got wind of the extra demands by the banks/debt holders reduced their offer again. I'm pretty sure that this whole sorry affair, once the dust has settled, will reflect badly on both BoD and Government. Of course, any will there be any ramifications for those held responsible? Na, don't be daft. Meanwhile the PBI are down the Job Centre.

Litebulbs
27th Oct 2019, 21:35
Nah, TC had been struggling already for a longer time. A loan guarantee would have just pushed the bankruptcy back with X amount of months.

Remember what Meysman said (noting that he said was no guarantee of truth), that the £200m was just extra cover for W2020, the debt equity swap would have cleared half of the gross debt etc etc "and" the banks were happy. HM Government were just a security.

Now, "I believe that" this is the reason why TCG are not here -Q152 Drew Hendry: Given that situation, why do you think the Government said no to you? Peter Fankhauser: Um— Drew Hendry: I am asking you. Peter Fankhauser: I can just say what is in the letter. They did not want to create a precedent to support the business. I was awfully sad when I had the high official on the phone at about 5 o’clock in the evening, because I knew that I had to throw in the towel.

Just imagine giving a lifeline to a commercial business pre Brexit, when, if things get tough, post Brexit, a precedent has been set. OK, a political problem, but.......

Litebulbs
30th Oct 2019, 12:10
Where there is a will -

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thomas-cook-grp-nordics/trio-of-buyers-rescues-thomas-cooks-nordic-business-idUKKBN1X9160

But that part of the still vertically integrated business, always delivered a healthy profit

WHBM
30th Oct 2019, 17:37
But that part of the still vertically integrated business, always delivered a healthy profit
Bit of a myth. The published profit for the Scandinavian operation is only because the amount Thomas Cook borrowed to acquire Tjaereborg, Spies, Vingresor, etc (all the onetime big Scandinavian names) was borrowed in London and booked against the Group. It has been the failure to repay these loans and/or their associated interest that has knocked down the UK-based Group and the associated UK travel operations. The trading results of the UK and the Scandinavian actual operations were pretty similar. It's been a real accounting massaging of the figures.

Litebulbs
30th Oct 2019, 19:17
I'm not questioning anything you say WHBM. When were these purchases made?

Litebulbs
30th Oct 2019, 19:19
Ah, the £964m inherited debt from the TCX/MYT merger?

WHBM
31st Oct 2019, 00:51
Ah, the £964m inherited debt from the TCX/MYT merger?Yes, the bulk of MYT being the Scandinavian operators. Merged in 2007 I think.