UK Govt proposal for failed airlines to keep going short term

[WHBM]

Proposal is failed carriers can keep their aircraft going to recover pax overseas without the expense of chartering in

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50022039

Can't see how that will work. Overseas airports and fuel suppliers will still put the bailiffs in for past debts on such an aircraft the moment it lands there. Crew will be off looking for job interviews before others get there. etc etc

[EcamSurprise]

Proposal is failed carriers can keep their aircraft going to recover pax overseas without the expense of chartering in

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50022039

Can't see how that will work. Overseas airports and fuel suppliers will still put the bailiffs in for past debts on such an aircraft the moment it lands there. Crew will be off looking for job interviews before others get there. etc etc

Isn't that exactly what Air Berlin did?

[Twiglet1]

Proposal is failed carriers can keep their aircraft going to recover pax overseas without the expense of chartering in

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50022039

Can't see how that will work. Overseas airports and fuel suppliers will still put the bailiffs in for past debts on such an aircraft the moment it lands there. Crew will be off looking for job interviews before others get there. etc etc
Let alone the mental stress for the crews - yeah your going on the rock n roll but before you go...

[etudiant]

Why is everyone slagging a sensible idea? The crews are not eager to be stranded far from home either and the legal issues are exactly the kind of thing that should be cleared up before the bankruptcy rather than after,

[old,not bold]

Of course it's a good idea; Thomas Cook could have operated the flights needed to recover their customers with the CAA/ATOL fund paying DOCs and guaranteeing payment to insurers, airports, handlers, fuel suppliers, ground staff, admin staff and aircrew.

It was obscene to see all those serviceable aircraft on the ground while the Government chartered capacity at enormous expense, paying from the ATOL fund - let's guess - 4 times what it would have cost to underwrite the TC operation DOCs.

I take the point about crews having other priorities, but I have no doubt at all that sufficient crews (and engineers, handlers etc) would have operated, if only for the money, but also, as we have seen, from a sense of obligation to their customers. All the systems and manpower were in place to operate these flights. All the necessary safety controls and documentation were in place and valid.

[chimbu warrior]

Why is everyone slagging a sensible idea?

Exactly.

I am only watching this from afar and am not involved, but understand that the British government outlaid something like GBP100 million on predominantly foreign aircraft to effect the recovery of Thomas Cook passengers. That must add insult to injury for the Thomas Cook staff.

If the money was used to fund the operation of Thomas Cook aircraft during the recovery, at least a greater proportion would stay in the UK economy.

[old,not bold]

I see in today's papers that a law is being considered in the UK which obliges all concerned to use the failed airline's staff and equipment in these situations to recover passengers, funded as needed by the ATOL fund.

It doesn't need a law, it just needs commonsense and acumen on the part of the UK CAA.
.

.
.
Ah, OK, forget that. Maybe it does need a law.

[Easy Street]

It doesn't need a law, it just needs commonsense and acumen on the part of the UK CAA.
.

.
.
Ah, OK, forget that. Maybe it does need a law.

UK law currently prevents the common sense approach being taken, so a change in the law is actually needed whatever your view of the CAA happens to be.

[DaveReidUK]

Overseas airports and fuel suppliers will still put the bailiffs in for past debts on such an aircraft the moment it lands there.

Yes, the only way I could see that working is for the administrators to guarantee payment of any outstanding user charges at every airport from which pax have to be repatriated (assuming there is any cash available to do so).

Otherwise, expect a lot of fire trucks and snowploughs to end up parked behind aircraft ...

[old,not bold]

UK law currently prevents the common sense approach being taken,


Hmmm.....I don't agree; in my view there are plenty of ways it could be done acting entirely within UK law. Which law do you have in mind which prevents that?

[Fly Aiprt]

Yes, the only way I could see that working is for the administrators to guarantee payment of any outstanding user charges at every airport from which pax have to be repatriated (assuming there is any cash available to do so).Otherwise, expect a lot of fire trucks and snowploughs to end up parked behind aircraft ...
So in addition to paying for the repatriation operations, the government would have to pay for the failed airline outstanding charges.
Common sense would dictate what has been done : use other airlines.

[DaveReidUK]

Hmmm.....I don't agree; in my view there are plenty of ways it could be done acting entirely within UK law. Which law do you have in mind which prevents that?

Presumably it's a reference to the proposed changes in the insolvency rules that are going to be announced in the Queen's Speech on Monday.

[Easy Street]

Hmmm.....I don't agree; in my view there are plenty of ways it could be done acting entirely within UK law. Which law do you have in mind which prevents that?

UK insolvency laws. They have no equivalent of US Chapter 11, which among other things prevents creditors from seizing assets. And UK laws bar directors of companies in administration from giving some creditors (ie stranded passengers) systematic preferential treatment over others, which is what they would be doing by running repatriation operations at a loss.

But don’t take my word for it. The UK Government commissioned a lengthy review into all this just after Monarch’s collapse, as a result of which legislation is apparently going to be put before Parliament in the near future. From page 11, paragraph 22 of March 2019's Airline Insolvency Review (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800219/airline-insolvency-review-report.pdf) report:

Delivering repatriation protection will require a number of improvements to the current legislative and regulatory arrangements for UK airlines:

● To ensure an insolvent airline can continue flight operations for a short period after entering administration so that passengers can be repatriated using the airline’s own aircraft, people and systems. This will require primary legislation to introduce a Special Administration Regime for airlines.

[oggers]

So in addition to paying for the repatriation operations, the government would have to pay for the failed airline outstanding charges.
Common sense would dictate what has been done : use other airlines.


Way to completely miss the point of the Airline Insolvency Review (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800219/airline-insolvency-review-report.pdf) All the things that people are not understanding are discussed.

[clipstone1]

It will require some sort of debt guarantee, since i heard of a UK airport that impounded 2 foreign registered aircraft that had been on long term lease to TCX and refused to release until said foreign airline paid the debt which technically was attached to those aircraft for TCX flights they'd undertaken (and TCX hadnt paid).

[Fly Aiprt]

Way to completely miss the point of the Airline Insolvency Review (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800219/airline-insolvency-review-report.pdf) All the things that people are not understanding are discussed.

Those recommendations seem to concern UK passengers.
In the case of Thomas Cook, 600 000 passengers were stranded, including 150 000 British.

[DieselOx]

You would not have to change the law, if you could put a delay in the filing for insolvency until all passengers are repatriated. Allow the new, required financial instrument (see Airline Insolvency Review linked above) to act as a buffer (cash injection, with strict limits on spending) to support final wind-down operations as a going concern, with oversight from CAA (or whatever appropriate govt agency has ability to manage). Filing for insolvency would be automatic at end of last flight home.

[tripilot]

From a CRM / Human Factors point of view - its not a good idea to have a crew flying an aircraft when they’ve just been told they’re going to be out of a job in a few days. Not a good thing to have on your mind when making a tricky approach in poor weather.

[Fly Aiprt]

From a CRM / Human Factors point of view - its not a good idea to have a crew flying an aircraft when they’ve just been told they’re going to be out of a job in a few days. Not a good thing to have on your mind when making a tricky approach in poor weather.

Agree.
Exposed the very same point some times ago, some posters here vehemently disagreed.

[BEA 71]

Condor had to charter a aircraft from another carrier to fly passengers to Djerba and back. A Hotel chain had threatened to put the aircraft on chains for lost payments by the Thomas Cook Group. Although it would have been a illegal act, Condor chose the better safe than sorry version. Condor operations runs like clock work, I travelled
to Palma a few days ago, all like in the good old days, but I talked to cabin crew, they hope their company survives.

[WHBM]

UK law, changed or not, has no impact on what happens to an aircraft at an overseas point, where it is subject to their laws.

One of the key things administrators seem keen to do is arrange for all the aircraft to be in the UK when they make the announcement, rather than having them spread all around.

[Flapping_Madly]

Steady chaps. You're dealing with the UK here. The world's foremost NO can do society.

[ShotOne]

Pilots fly under notice of redundancy all the time. Several US carriers operated under bankruptcy protection for years. And bizarrely, airlines are allowed to use pilots who are not even employees under various pay to fly (P2F) schemes.

[mikemmb]

Steady chaps. You're dealing with the UK here. The world's foremost NO can do society.

You can’t say that!