Thomas Cook Gone

[4runner]

Originally Posted by BEA 71

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, I´ll 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 757’s profitably and reliably. Kindly keep your armchair airline management theories for your mates at the pub.

[BEA 71]

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 Condor´s 757´s. If I had doubts about their reliability, I would definately not fly on them.

[jonnyrobbo]

G-TCDA flew out to Montpellier a couple of days back....

[foxcharliep2]

Originally Posted by Smooth Airperator

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]

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]

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 . 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]

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]

Originally Posted by KelvinD

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]

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]

Originally Posted by WHBM

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 . 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]

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]

https://www.airtanker.co.uk/leasing

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by dc9-32

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dtaylor1984

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]

Originally Posted by dtaylor1984

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/articl...f-atol-renewal

[FRogge]

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]

Originally Posted by FRogge

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]

Originally Posted by FRogge

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]

Where there is a will -

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-th...-idUKKBN1X9160

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