Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

UK Govt proposal for failed airlines to keep going short term

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

UK Govt proposal for failed airlines to keep going short term

Old 12th Oct 2019, 07:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,232
UK Govt proposal for failed airlines to keep going short term

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
WHBM is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 07:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Not At Home
Posts: 1,699
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
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?
EcamSurprise is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 08:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
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...
Twiglet1 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 10:49
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 533
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,
etudiant is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 11:18
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 756
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.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 11:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 1,325
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.
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 17:59
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 756
Question

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.

old,not bold is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 18:45
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by old,not bold View Post
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.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 18:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,642
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
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 ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 19:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post
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?
old,not bold is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 19:35
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 19:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,642
Originally Posted by old,not bold View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 19:50
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by old,not bold View Post
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 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.

Last edited by Easy Street; 12th Oct 2019 at 20:37.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 20:27
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
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 All the things that people are not understanding are discussed.
oggers is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 20:52
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 1
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).
clipstone1 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 21:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
Way to completely miss the point of the Airline Insolvency Review 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.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2019, 15:01
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 12
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.
DieselOx is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2019, 15:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter
Posts: 18
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.
tripilot is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2019, 15:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by tripilot View Post
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.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2019, 17:07
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 75
Posts: 69
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.
BEA 71 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.