UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Except this government had nothing to do with bailing out those firms. That was the last government. I also doubt any government would have had the courage (or insanity) to allow two major banks to collapse considering what kind of damage that could do to the economy at large.

Try uk sport - 30Mil

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

The engineering business hasn't been carved off though. It's always been separate. It actually predates the airlines foundation in 1967 by several months.

It was part of the monarch group of companies, with the same ceo and directors and was contributing to results
There's loads of examples of this - Dart/Jet2/FW if one of these companies were in trouble would the group not fund the other to help survival whilst they dealt with the issues. They could move profits around artificially if required - look at amazon and the likes.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

, then they should be repatriating their own passengers as far as they can, right up to the moment their bank balance turns red.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I was under the assumption that the CAA won't grant a licence to an airline unless they can prove they have sufficient cash reserves. Flying until they are "in the red" would mean the CAA would pull the licence surely since trading while insolvent is illegal in the UK.

This is the airline that added an order of 15 max jets around 12 weeks before - so it clearly thought it would have cash coming from somewhere.
How do you go from spending billions (list price) to 12 weeks later having nothing. And we dont know it had nothing left we just know its stopped.
This is where its odd.
If you're projecting a 100MIL loss you dont order another 15 jets you know you cant pay for.
If you're trying to 'pivot' your business to long haul you dont buy 45 short haul jets - you certainly dont buy another 15 and consult after.
If you're trying to sell your short haul company, you dont commit to a costly aircraft order and liability.

Something does not add up with the entire way this company has been run.

gunnerman wrote:

lee757 wrote:

Which brings me back to if we're paying for it anyway why not actually buy it and have something to show for it and keep the people in work.

You still don't understand that Monarch is not a viable business which no sensible organisation or government is going to keep going.

Pretty condescending. What you dont seem to understand is why i'm questioning it.

I fully understand that Monarch made some terrible decisions. I dont think its at all clear the actions its taken over the past couple of years.

I agree it wasn't viable the way it was run.
NOT that it wasn't viable at all.
NOT that administration was the only or sole option for them.

lee757 wrote:

Loads of questions about this

Firstly CAA - making a total mockery of ATOL - why on earth are tour operators or consumers forced to pay if they are going to repatriate everyone regardless.

I suspect part of the issue is that until comparatively recently Monarch issued ATOL certificates to people booking flight only rather than just package holiday purchasers. It may well have been administratively simpler to just bring them all back. Bear in mind that the main repatriation effort is only running for two weeks. After that only ATOL holders will be returned for free.

lee757 wrote:

The administrators charging people to hear they had been made redundant is also a total slap in the face and utter contempt against ZB staff.

Good on the union for contesting the redundancy process - though it wont change anything. Also might add that rather then filing a new company AS should have gone across the road to LTN to apologise for the people already at the airport despite a decision that was made days earlier.

The administrators, who are KPMG IIRC and unrelated to CAA, were fairly quick to hold up their hands on the phone costs when challenged although I agree they shouldn't have made that error in the first place.

lee757 wrote:

UK's 5th airline wiped out and the losers are staff and customers and tax payers. Whilst the shareholders will reclaim how much?

As has already been pointed out there is no direct cost to tax payers in repatriating customers abroad. Obviously there's a cost to tax payers for those put out of work but that's not unique to aviation firms. I think it's safe to say that shareholders will get zilch. More to the point a number of Monarch's suppliers will also be nursing heavy losses.

lee757 wrote:

NOT that it wasn't viable at all.
NOT that administration was the only or sole option for them.

snipped the posts above for brevity...

That's the point. It wasn't viable at all, if you look at the numbers. Losing £100 million a year across such a small fleet shows that they seemed to be in the position of having numbers where no matter their attempts at cost cutting it wasn't possible. If it was just a one-off loss then possibly they could have survived, but this is consistent over a couple of years and there was no upward trend. Losses were just getting bigger.

The pressure on fares was ever increasing too. It's almost impossible to reverse losses when your fares are becoming lower and lower, or seats go unsold. The only way that can work is with volumes and in a competitive environment even that was against them.

Lastly there just isn't any asset value in the company. All the fleet was leased so it is just some buildings and equipment. When your losses exceed the assets of the company, that's fatal. Debt covenants start to be broken and loans called in. We don't know the full story of that side of it yet.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

I was under the assumption that the CAA won't grant a licence to an airline unless they can prove they have sufficient cash reserves. Flying until they are "in the red" would mean the CAA would pull the licence surely since trading while insolvent is illegal in the UK.

Trading while insolvent is illegal - yeah, that's a good one. That's never been done before. Much.
In this case it's illegal primarily because the CAA say it's illegal. They make the rules, they can also revise them pending circumstances. Ok, I'm expecting a heavy response to that comment, but have you never been pulled by a traffic cop who says "I know you were speeding, I know you were breaking the law, but I'm letting you off with a warning this time"? I have. Several times.

Besides, I'm not necessarily suggesting Monarch continue trading, and certainly not as they currently are. What I am suggesting is that Monarch aircraft & crew continue flying, on a temporary permit from the CAA, just to bring back their passengers stranded abroad. No new bookings, no extra bodies flown out, unless they are already booked, and they totally accept that they are on a one-way ticket.

Earlier in the thread various posters were discussing the use of Qatar registered aircraft (& others) brought in because there wasn't any spare capacity here in the UK. Nonsense; there are plenty of "spare" aircraft and crew sitting at UK airports as we speak, all of them with yellow & black colour schemes, and a big "M" on the tail. Let's use them!

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Earlier in the thread various posters were discussing the use of Qatar registered aircraft (& others) brought in because there wasn't any spare capacity here in the UK. Nonsense; there are plenty of "spare" aircraft and crew sitting at UK airports as we speak, all of them with yellow & black colour schemes, and a big "M" on the tail. Let's use them!

Well, if you did read posts earlier in the thread, you should already be aware of why your suggestion cannot fly! The lease contracts between Monarch and the owners of the aircraft ceased to apply when Monarch entered receivership. Do you expect the CAA to enter into contractual negotiations with a variety of leasing companies, and to come out with contracts that allow immediate use of the aircraft with third party crews? That could take months to arrange, while the poor old Monarch holiday makers are expecting to be rescued back to Blighty ASAP!

I actually agree 100% of the apparent sense of using the Monarch fleet and crews to rescue the thousands awaiting "rescue from Dunkirk", but unfortunately the real world makes this great idea impracticable. That's why the CAA deals with viable companies that have capacity and crew available immediately, and get the job done now!

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Trading while insolvent is illegal - yeah, that's a good one. That's never been done before. Much.
In this case it's illegal primarily because the CAA say it's illegal. They make the rules, they can also revise them pending circumstances.

No it's because a piece of legislation makes it illegal, specifically Section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_trading

I don't believe the CAA can simply override Acts of Parliament.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

but have you never been pulled by a traffic cop who says "

No because I happen to be a good driver who obeys the traffic laws. It's really not that difficult to do.

lee757 wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

lee757 wrote:

Loads of questions about this

Firstly CAA - making a total mockery of ATOL - why on earth are tour operators or consumers forced to pay if they are going to repatriate everyone regardless

The government asked the CAA to repatriate everyone as the scale of the collapse was unprecedented. The funding is from Monarch's ATOL bond which would have been immediately called in and getting other companies such as credit card companies to provide refunds. The latter case applies where customers paid by credit card, so the credit card company is jointly liable to refund for transactions between £100 and £30,000 under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

More likely she didnt want the distraction during her attempt to relaunch herself.

Section 75 is for a customer to claim and they would also have to attempt mitigate their losses - not every one way flight back would have cost circa £250 and good look proving that to someone like amex who arranges travel. And some providers are owned by people of a similar vein to greybull., private equity who wont be too willing to drop £250 per person - plus all other costs. They buried it because it was TMay relaunch and kicked ATOL and the costs to further down the road when they'll be zero focus on monarch.

Luckily they might be able to force RBS to cough up - the perpetual golden goose.

Which brings me back to if we're paying for it anyway why not actually buy it and have something to show for it and keep the people in work.

lee757 wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

lee757 wrote:

Which brings me back to if we're paying for it anyway why not actually buy it and have something to show for it and keep the people in work.

You still don't understand that Monarch is not a viable business which no sensible organisation or government is going to keep going.

Pretty condescending. What you dont seem to understand is why i'm questioning it.

I fully understand that Monarch made some terrible decisions. I dont think its at all clear the actions its taken over the past couple of years.

I agree it wasn't viable the way it was run.
NOT that it wasn't viable at all.
NOT that administration was the only or sole option for them.

It's rumoured that the £165million injected into the company last year, came from the sale and leaseback of those shiny new MAX's they had on order!

Hard as it may be to accept - Monarch was an injured baby seal that needed to be clubbed.

We seem to have gained two new members with an axe to grind, and no appreciation of commercial reality. A year ago Monarch failed to provide the CAA with sufficient assurance for their ATOL certificate to be renewed, only after 12 days of negotiation and the ultimate owners putting up an additional £165 million was it renewed. Less than 11 months later Monarch informed the CAA that they were once again in difficulties, this being more than a month before the due date. the result was the collapse last weekend. This is a huge sum to burn through in a year and they had already admitted that their business plan would require significant alteration.
The fleet was all leased, and leases fall through at the point of administration, indeed some have already been reclaimed by their owners, so quite how the CAA could have engaged Monarch to fly the passengers home escapes me, especially as they needed to come home on or very near their original flight date.
As to trading whilst insolvent, of course it happens, but most businesses only have to produce accounts many months in arrears, airlines requiring an ATOL certificate have to provide up to date information, and very few directors would be willing to put their name to an obviously incorrect statement.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Earlier in the thread various posters were discussing the use of Qatar registered aircraft (& others) brought in because there wasn't any spare capacity here in the UK. Nonsense; there are plenty of "spare" aircraft and crew sitting at UK airports as we speak, all of them with yellow & black colour schemes, and a big "M" on the tail. Let's use them!

sassiciai wrote:

Well, if you did read posts earlier in the thread, you should already be aware of why your suggestion cannot fly!

I appreciate the pun - nice one!. I don't appreciate the unnecessary slap in the face. As it happens I have read all the previous posts; I'm sorry if that didn't appear obvious.
But it doesn't mean I have to accept everything that has been said previously. You say that the lease contracts between Monarch and the owners of the aircraft ceased to apply when Monarch entered receivership, and I don't doubt it. But why did they enter into receivership? Because they were pushed there by the CAA action. But why then? Unlike Cinderella, their financial situation did not significantly alter just because the clock struck midnight; they did not "suddenly" become insolvent on October 2nd. - that is simply an anniversary date that prompted the CAA to take action. Monarch have been in financial difficulties for some time, and a close inspection of the books at any date in the last five years might have resulted in immediate closure. Or rather, a managed shutdown of operations, making sure Monarch brought everybody home before parking their aircraft up and turning the hangar lights off for the last time.

sassiciai wrote:

I actually agree 100% of the apparent sense of using the Monarch fleet and crews to rescue the thousands awaiting "rescue from Dunkirk", but unfortunately the real world makes this great idea impracticable. That's why the CAA deals with viable companies that have capacity and crew available immediately, and get the job done now!

Mea culpa; I am foolishly trying to turn the clock back to what should have happened some weeks ago, and I should accept that today's idle Monarch fleet is off-limits for rescue flights. You are right

Dano1977 wrote:

Hard as it may be to accept - Monarch was an injured baby seal that needed to be clubbed.

A sad end to nearly 50 years of history, I remember as a child flying to Malta from Luton in 1982 on one their Boeing 737-200's (G-DFUB) and then a year later to Reus on one of their BAC 1-11's (G-AWWZ) I also remember seeing one of their last Boeing 720's parked up as we was boarding, if I remember rightly was Cosmos Holidays owned by Monarch?.

Markie73 wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Hard as it may be to accept - Monarch was an injured baby seal that needed to be clubbed.

A sad end to nearly 50 years of history, I remember as a child flying to Malta from Luton in 1982 on one their Boeing 737-200's (G-DFUB) and then a year later to Reus on one of their BAC 1-11's (G-AWWZ) I also remember seeing one of their last Boeing 720's parked up as we was boarding, if I remember rightly was Cosmos Holidays owned by Monarch?.

Cosmos started Monarch and sold holidays using its in-house airline. Then Monarch became the parent company, but after a long battle Cosmos Tours & Cruises got the right to regain its right and licences to the Cosmos brand earlier this year. Cosmos was not part of the Monarch sale to Greybull Capital in 2014, is a completely separate company to Monarch and is trading profitably as a tour operator.

bennett123 wrote:

I see they acquired an A321 this year.

Plenty more going cheap, and ZB pilots to go with them.

Acquired as in leased, as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread Monarch leased all their aircraft so no acquisitions were ever made so therefore all of the aircraft will be returned to their lessors.

Incidentally, in these instances are the logos/names removed from the aircraft livery immediately?

Would love to have got some final pics of my fav airline.

Childhood memories and all that

Has anyone gotten a picture of all their parked planes yet? I am surprised nobody has posted one yet.

The last flights arrived at five different UK airports (BHX, LGW, LBA, LTN, MAN), and as I understand it they weren't parked in neat rows but on whatever remote stands were free at arrival time. Now the leasing companies have started collecting them, so there were just 3 days to get round 5 airports if someone wanted to photograph the lot. And a photo of a Monarch airliner parked last week between flights is indistinguishable from one parked this week after closure, given that they weren't all lined up together!

Bongodog1964 wrote:

We seem to have gained two new members with an axe to grind, and no appreciation of commercial reality.

Bongodog1964 has hit that nail on the head. If I may add that they appear to lack the ability to learn. I suppose that this is inevitable given the open entry system of A.net ?

F9Animal wrote:

Has anyone gotten a picture of all their parked planes yet? I am surprised nobody has posted one yet.

I've seen 3 ZB liveried aircraft parked at Gatwick this week. Not sure how long they will remain there for.

Cheers

Ben

F9Animal wrote:

Has anyone gotten a picture of all their parked planes yet? I am surprised nobody has posted one yet.

I have seen some on FB.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

We seem to have gained two new members with an axe to grind, and no appreciation of commercial reality.

Egerton wrote:

Bongodog1964 has hit that nail on the head. If I may add that they appear to lack the ability to learn. I suppose that this is inevitable given the open entry system of A.net ?

Oooh, harsh!
I'm guessing I'm one of those in the dock, assumed guilty until proved innocent?
Earlier in the thread I was myself charged with failing to read all of the previous posts, and now you add failing to learn from them.

I had (read all the posts), and I did (learn from them). I have learnt quite a lot, for which I am grateful. Indeed, I believe I demonstrated that quite adequately in some of my replies.

So... j'accuse!
It is YOU who need to read all of my posts, show some ability to learn from them, and maybe summon up the cojones to offer an apology.

I'm not holding my breath

ps it truly grieves me to write this somewhat petty response; this is not what I came to a.net for. I hope we can bury the hatchet between us.

No Axe to grind just very dubious of greybull being involved in another business that collapsed. (never worked for ZB or any grebull company).
I'm happy to take on another point of view without insulting others or making assumptions about someone else's knowledge. I'm simply raising questions without blinding accepting what a fairly poor management team have put out. Nobody is denying monarch having issues over numerous years (or failing to address them) - but we still dont have the full story as to whats gone on.
I maintain that it will be very interesting to see where the money went, what that projected loss was for, what offers it had and how much greybull have put in and had out since they took it over.

Saw 6 ZB on the ground at BHX this morning as I arrived from AMS didn’t catch all the regs but I do recall seeing OZBU and OZBE as 2 of them. A very sad sight pulling in to the gate area I must say

The fleet is being returned to the lessors:





http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4

Article in times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the max order . Greybull set to lose much less than thought after sale of slots and cash reserve

But did Monarch ever own any slots? I don't think so therefore they can't be used as assets to sell on to pay any creditors.

As far as I am aware any slots at the airports that Monarch operated from would just be put back in the pool and distributed to other airlines not sold on.

Also can the OP please remove 'stranded' from the headline as no one was actually 'stranded' by the collapse of Monarch as the CAA had a very comprehensive repatriation plan in place.

f4f3a wrote:

Article in times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the max order . Greybull set to lose much less than thought after sale of slots and cash reserve

Link here to article :

Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.

The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.

Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

That deal, plus a potential £60m sale of lucrative runway slots and £48m of cash in Monarch’s bank account, means Greybull is likely to walk away with losses that are a fraction of the £250m shortfall it has been widely reported as facing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj

Saw G-OZBX, G-ZBAS, G-MARA and G-OJEG at LTN on the 6th. All were in normal markings.

Also G-ZBAU at EGBP on 7th.

OA260 wrote:

f4f3a wrote:

Article in times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the max order . Greybull set to lose much less than thought after sale of slots and cash reserve

Link here to article :

Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.

The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.

Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

That deal, plus a potential £60m sale of lucrative runway slots and £48m of cash in Monarch’s bank account, means Greybull is likely to walk away with losses that are a fraction of the £250m shortfall it has been widely reported as facing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj

I do not understand why Boeing would pay almost £165m to Monarch's offshore holding company a year ago. The sale and leaseback would have had the lessor provide the financing for the 737 MAXs and lease the aircraft to Monarch, so why did Boeing get involved.

Given all the information we have so far, im guessing there is little/no chance of us ever seeing a Monarch come back??

As much as I would love it, it's a sad thought.

mattyfitzg wrote:

Given all the information we have so far, im guessing there is little/no chance of us ever seeing a Monarch come back??

As much as I would love it, it's a sad thought.

Depends... I guess someone could buy the brand and revive it in some way. Mind you, I sort of expected that to happen with the “Britannia” brand and nobody seemed interested in that...

That's because TUI probably still have the rights to the former Britannia brand name hence why it hasn't been reused by another airline.

gunnerman wrote:

OA260 wrote:

f4f3a wrote:

Article in times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the max order . Greybull set to lose much less than thought after sale of slots and cash reserve

Link here to article :

Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.

The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.



Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

That deal, plus a potential £60m sale of lucrative runway slots and £48m of cash in Monarch’s bank account, means Greybull is likely to walk away with losses that are a fraction of the £250m shortfall it has been widely reported as facing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj

I do not understand why Boeing would pay almost £165m to Monarch's offshore holding company a year ago. The sale and leaseback would have had the lessor provide the financing for the 737 MAXs and lease the aircraft to Monarch, so why did Boeing get involved.

I was under the impression that Boeing got involved financially because they were also the lessors as part of the purchase deal.

mattyfitzg wrote:

Given all the information we have so far, im guessing there is little/no chance of us ever seeing a Monarch come back??

As much as I would love it, it's a sad thought.

To be honest I think its better to put it to bed and at least people look back on it with some sort of respect and nostalgia despite its collapse. Re hashing a brand can do a lot of damage if it ruins the legacy and gets a bad reputation. Just look at Pan Am when they whored the name out with failed attempts.

Cunard wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Link here to article :

Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.

The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.



Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

That deal, plus a potential £60m sale of lucrative runway slots and £48m of cash in Monarch’s bank account, means Greybull is likely to walk away with losses that are a fraction of the £250m shortfall it has been widely reported as facing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj

I do not understand why Boeing would pay almost £165m to Monarch's offshore holding company a year ago. The sale and leaseback would have had the lessor provide the financing for the 737 MAXs and lease the aircraft to Monarch, so why did Boeing get involved.

I was under the impression that Boeing got involved financially because they were also the lessors as part of the purchase deal.

That was my suspicion, but Boeing as a lessor was a secured creditor, so it still isn't clear why so much money should have been advanced. Maybe we'll find out one day.

OA260 wrote:

mattyfitzg wrote:

Given all the information we have so far, im guessing there is little/no chance of us ever seeing a Monarch come back??

As much as I would love it, it's a sad thought.

To be honest I think its better to put it to bed and at least people look back on it with some sort of respect and nostalgia despite its collapse. Re hashing a brand can do a lot of damage if it ruins the legacy and gets a bad reputation. Just look at Pan Am when they whored the name out with failed attempts.

True. Let it go gracefully.

gunnerman wrote:

Cunard wrote:

gunnerman wrote:

I do not understand why Boeing would pay almost £165m to Monarch's offshore holding company a year ago. The sale and leaseback would have had the lessor provide the financing for the 737 MAXs and lease the aircraft to Monarch, so why did Boeing get involved.

I was under the impression that Boeing got involved financially because they were also the lessors as part of the purchase deal.

That was my suspicion, but Boeing as a lessor was a secured creditor, so it still isn't clear why so much money should have been advanced. Maybe we'll find out one day.

Because it's all a con. You don't get rich without cutting a few corners...

gunnerman wrote:

OA260 wrote:

f4f3a wrote:

Article in times says last years cash injection was from Boeing as part of the max order . Greybull set to lose much less than thought after sale of slots and cash reserve

Link here to article :

Revealed: Monarch owner’s secret deal with Boeing
Vulture fund propped up airline through offshore transaction with planes giant

The secretive owner of Monarch Airlines, which collapsed last week, drastically cut its exposure to losses through a back-door deal with aerospace giant Boeing.

The Sunday Times can reveal that Monarch received the bulk of the money to fund a £165m bailout one year ago from the Chicago-based plane maker — not from its private equity owner Greybull.

Boeing is understood to have injected the money via Monarch’s offshore holding company, Petrol Jersey Ltd.

That deal, plus a potential £60m sale of lucrative runway slots and £48m of cash in Monarch’s bank account, means Greybull is likely to walk away with losses that are a fraction of the £250m shortfall it has been widely reported as facing.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -2cjp8t9rj

I do not understand why Boeing would pay almost £165m to Monarch's offshore holding company a year ago. The sale and leaseback would have had the lessor provide the financing for the 737 MAXs and lease the aircraft to Monarch, so why did Boeing get involved.

So is that an aircraft manufacturer providing a multi-million incentive package to an airline in order to prop up a large sales deal ? Imagine that...

Why are the ZB rescue flights being operated by QR aircraft using BA codes? Is it because QR cannot fly intra-Europe flights with their own code? If so, why BA codes - why not ZB codes? Is BA actually operating these flights?

F9Animal wrote:

Has anyone gotten a picture of all their parked planes yet? I am surprised nobody has posted one yet.

There is quite a lot of photos of the rescue aircraft here:
http://www.bhxspotter.com/blog/page/2/

There is also photos of the grounded Monarch aircraft on the day they closed down. Many of those aircraft have now been flown to various locations around Europe.

vhtje wrote:

Why are the ZB rescue flights being operated by QR aircraft using BA codes? Is it because QR cannot fly intra-Europe flights with their own code? If so, why BA codes - why not ZB codes? Is BA actually operating these flights?

QR cannot normally operate flights wholly within Europe, because they don't have a European Common Aviation Area AOC or an openskies agreement with the EU. However special permission was granted for BA to subcontract intra-European flights to QR while their cabin crew strikes were on. This has been extended to cover the Monarch crisis. So the flights have BA numbers as the CAA has chartered BA to provide them (knowing that they will be subcontracted to QR). It is convenient for everyone as QR have immediately available spare planes and crews due to the airspace closures in its home region.
Air Transat is operating under its own code, because the EU-Canada open skies agreement does permit this, just as the EU-US agreement would have allowed United to do the same last year.

Nobody is using ZB codes because the AOC for Monarch has been suspended

Andy33 wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Why are the ZB rescue flights being operated by QR aircraft using BA codes? Is it because QR cannot fly intra-Europe flights with their own code? If so, why BA codes - why not ZB codes? Is BA actually operating these flights?

QR cannot normally operate flights wholly within Europe, because they don't have a European Common Aviation Area AOC or an openskies agreement with the EU. However special permission was granted for BA to subcontract intra-European flights to QR while their cabin crew strikes were on. This has been extended to cover the Monarch crisis. So the flights have BA numbers as the CAA has chartered BA to provide them (knowing that they will be subcontracted to QR). It is convenient for everyone as QR have immediately available spare planes and crews due to the airspace closures in its home region.
Air Transat is operating under its own code, because the EU-Canada open skies agreement does permit this, just as the EU-US agreement would have allowed United to do the same last year.

Nobody is using ZB codes because the AOC for Monarch has been suspended

An excellent explanation of the facts involved but I'm surprised after a week that you had to explain that to anyone as it's quite self explanatory.