Non-motoring > Thomas Cook in trouble Miscellaneous
Thread Author: sooty123 Replies: 127

 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49785426

Quite a few airlines have gone bust, not sure many are of this size. Something like 160,000 uk customers are on a TC holiday. That's a lot of people to get back. I wonder what the largest number of customers have had to get back are?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - CGNorwich
338,000, Dunkirk, 1940
 Thomas Cook in trouble - tyrednemotional
...sorted; we can send out a fleet of Piper Commanches.....
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero
We lost a few along the way.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> 338,000, Dunkirk, 1940
>>

Not really customers are they?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
Grey Funnel Line ?


Not a mention of the employees in this morning's coverage on R4. Most customers will get home and ATOL, ABTA or credit cards will look after them. I have friend who works for them in H&S is probably biting his nails as his family will be.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Rudedog
I think they are asking the gov for roughly £200 million odd to stay afloat, and yet it I've heard it could cost the gov £600 million to bring back customers from around the world if they go bust... bet they still let them go under.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
I've seen that figure, I'm not sure that they are correct. Monach's repat cost a tenth of that.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
So what happens after that £200m is burnt in the backyard -another 200m - the company has been on the brink for months of not longer.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> I've seen that figure, I'm not sure that they are correct. Monach's repat cost a
>> tenth of that.

More customers away and Monarch was latterly a European operation whilst TCX has services to States, Carribbean etc.

Factor of ten still a lot though. Are figures being bandied calculated on same basis? Costs net of ATOL reserve fund so not?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123

>>
>> Factor of ten still a lot though. Are figures being bandied calculated on same basis?
>> Costs net of ATOL reserve fund so not?
>>
>>

I think the numbers have been put out by TC executives, possibly to scare the government into acting. Ten times the cost even given there's more people to bring back than monarch and possibly more long haul is silly money surely.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
>> I think the numbers have been put out by TC executives, possibly to scare the
>> government into acting. Ten times the cost even given there's more people to bring back
>> than monarch and possibly more long haul is silly money surely.
>>

£600m at guessed £600 a pop at a premium last minute airfare back that is 1,000,000 passengers. Do they really have that many abroad?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>Do they really have that many abroad?

600,000 people, about 25% British.

If the collapse of such a company really requires Government intervention then ATOL protection is clearly inadequate and should be increased going forward.

In any case, if the Government does not pay the £200m, and they certainly should not, the £600m to repatriate everybody will be paid by ATOL and various insurers NOT the Government.

So not very scary.

In any case, why should Thomas Cook be protected? If one takes over a company and continues to run it in the same way that it has been run then the same thing will happen. And I can see nothing in their past which would be addressed by increased or changed investment - it will just become a continuing money pit.

For TC to be an ongoing concern then something must change. Being owned and run with other similar businesses may be that difference.

Any additional investment from existing investors, shareholders or banks is simply them throwing possibly good money after bad to try to avoid losing their existing investment.

Any sensible investment will come from someone with a strategic plan. Fosun have such a plan, and they certainly have the money. Though as I understand it they only want the tour company not the airline. One assumes that the airline will be wound up or sold separately. The former being more likely.

There should be no Government money for the company, especially since the company is seeking capital investment, not a loan - i.e. it will become partially state owned with little prospect of any repayment.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
> If the collapse of such a company really requires Government intervention then ATOL protection is
>> clearly inadequate and should be increased going forward.
>>
>> In any case, if the Government does not pay the £200m, and they certainly should
>> not, the £600m to repatriate everybody will be paid by ATOL and various insurers NOT
>> the Government.
>>
>>
the report i read is that government make good any requirements for repat flights should the atol fund not be sufficient.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R

>> the report i read is that government make good any requirements for repat flights should
>> the atol fund not be sufficient.

I didn't know they had a duty to do so, though you may be quite correct. However, even if there is a shortfall and the Government have to pay it, it'll be far lower than either the £600m or the £200m.

If they do invest the £200m, and I don't think they will, it'll only be kicking the bucket down the corridor unless there is material change.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> If they do invest the £200m, and I don't think they will, it'll only be
>> kicking the bucket down the corridor unless there is material change.

Absolutely, I think they can loan them the money and then have it repaid through the atol premium on holiday sales.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 19:59
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>> I think they can loan them the money

I expect that the current shareholders and creditors will not want the debt increased and will probably not accept either a loan or a loan guarantee.

They are [probably] seeking a capital investment. Whilst that may dilute share holding value it does not increase the debt burden.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> They are [probably] seeking a capital investment. Whilst that may dilute share holding value it> does not increase the debt burden.


Sorry i should have been clearer, I meant loan it to atol if they can't cover the repat flights.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 19:59
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>> I meant loan it to atol

Ah, I didn't think of that.

Behind ATOL is ATT which currently has reserves of £180m.

Apparently the Monarch failure involved 110,000 people. Bottom of page 4 onwards is quite interesting in this connection.

publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATT_Accounts_2018.pdf

There's also ABTA for holidays not involving flights, though I have no idea what proportion that would be.

If there are 600k people on TC holidays, but only 25% (150k) are Brits, then I assume that broadly ATOL is only responsible for the repatriation of 150,000 people.

One assumes something like £150m total. I cannot imagine any shortfall will be significant in this case.

Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 16:59
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Page 7 -

"On 30 April 2018, the ATT extended its existing insurance cover to 31 March 2020. Cover is provided by a panel of insurers and the annual limit is £400million"
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> Page 7 -
>>
>> "On 30 April 2018, the ATT extended its existing insurance cover to 31 March 2020.
>> Cover is provided by a panel of insurers and the annual limit is £400million"

>>

Thanks, The bit i read on caa made it sound like the government steps in. I think it's more like they organise the structure of the insurance rather than the funding per se.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 18:04
 Thomas Cook in trouble - tyrednemotional
>>
>> If there are 600k people on TC holidays, but only 25% (150k) are Brits, then
>> I assume that broadly ATOL is only responsible for the repatriation of 150,000 people.
>>

...does the ATOL requirement not apply to the seller (Thomas Cook as a UK based company), rather than the customer? (Genuine question).

"ATOL protection applies to most air trips abroad that are booked with UK based travel companies. If you are covered by ATOL, you should have been given you an ATOL Certificate when you booked."

Both UK and European law require protection, and I can't see a company wanting to double up on such provision, unless, of course, sales were through a subsidiary legally based elsewhere.

I suspect ATOL will be liable for the full number (though, of course, the UK Government could decide to limit any shortfall to cover repatriation of only UK citizens).
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 17:12
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>..does the ATOL requirement not apply to the seller (Thomas Cook as a UK based company), rather than the customer? (Genuine question).

I don't know is the quick answer. It might well, I guess.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - tyrednemotional
I can't find a definitive answer, but there is information that UK citizens would/could be covered by other European counties' arrangements if a booking is made with a European-based provider.

The logic (and probably European law) then dictates that the reverse is true.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
ATOL covers any eligible arrangements booked with a UK licensed operator.

There are subs in all the European countries I checked. What is not clear to me is whether those subs are trading under their UK license or have country specific licenses. Depends on EU / Not EU I should think.

I see in the US that TC has filed under Chapter 15. That is essentially Chapter 11 but for foreign registered businesses.

In any case, ATT has £180m in the bank and insurance for another £400m. It's difficult to imagine any circumstance where there will be a great shortfall.

However, not 100% of holidays will be ATOL protected, for sure some will not be. What number of travellers that might become I have no idea, but it's more than none.

For those I assume the Government will be funding repatriation or at least taking some steps.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 17:28
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Duncan
>> I've heard it could cost the gov £600 million to bring back
>> customers from around the world if they go bust

The customers made their own arrangements to get out there. Let them make there own arrangements to get back.

Why should I pay for it?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Though I often believe the government has a social duty I do not think that extends to funding private companies in times of trouble.

What do you do, though, if a British citizen cannot fund their return to the UK? And if you do that, then what about all the people that can afford their own repatriation but can see no reason why they should not have theirs paid as well?

I think we need to accept that if it does go pear shaped and there is a funding gap, then the Government will have to step in. Though they should then be *the* priority creditor.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 15:56
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>Why should I pay for it?

By the way, this is becoming an increasing refrain and it's absolute cack. It is not your money, you are not paying for anything. The Government is spending funds that they have raised. You may not like how they spend it, you may argue or vote against it, but it is *not* your money.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Duncan
Adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

You paid to get yourself out there, you can pay to get yourself back.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - tyrednemotional
>>
>>..........you can pay to get yourself back.
>>

.....they did......
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bobby
Duncan, why so nasty?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
People have paid to get back, it's just that the company that promised to do so may not be able to.

The when the last outfit went under their aircraft were not used and others had to be found which is the complication, hotels abroad will sometimes turf the guest out if the tour operator fails. None of this is the fault of the tourist and the state stepping in to help is probably a reasonable thing to do, even if it is a PITA for tax payers.

ATOL / ABTA will step in to repatriate and many should have travel insurance / credit cards to cover the cost.

There was an issue a few years back when tourists stranded abroad claimed on both their credit cards under section 75 and ABTA / ATOL and it caused a ruckus at work.

There are rules somewhere that say that if you are repatriated now, then that element will not be refunded by the credit card companies.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>even if it is a PITA for tax payers.

Only tax payers having the right to an opinion? And the value of your opinion depends on how much tax you pay?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 17:54
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
>> >>even if it is a PITA for tax payers.
>>
>> Only tax payers having the right to an opinion? And the value of your opinion
>> depends on how much tax you pay?
>>

Pedantic comment of the day! Perchance "stake holder" is more appropriate for sir!?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero

>> There are rules somewhere that say that if you are repatriated now, then that element
>> will not be refunded by the credit card companies.

If you are not repatriated on the day you were due, they will have to be, as the contact wasn't fulfilled.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
>> If you are not repatriated on the day you were due, they will have to
>> be, as the contact wasn't fulfilled.

Point being you can't claim twice for the repatriation, (from ABTA / ATOL as well as the credit card company and insurances) which was the case previously. The credit card company will claim from ABTA / ATOL as appropriate.

Some scallies would be booking holidays from companies that they suspected were going to fail in the hope of getting repaid 3 times otherwise!

You can of course claim any extra costs from the credit card company under S75 as long as they are real.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Sep 19 at 19:59
 Thomas Cook in trouble - CGNorwich
>> >>Why should I pay for it?
>>
>> By the way, this is becoming an increasing refrain and it's absolute cack. It is
>> not your money, you are not paying for anything. The Government is spending funds that
>> they have raised.

Well sort of, The Government can only raise those funds based ultimately on its ability to repay those loans via taxation and guess who ultimately will be paying those taxes.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
On the itv news tonight it looks like they'll be an announcement first thing that TC are no more and the caa will start the repatriation flights.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
About 3.00am UK would be my guess.

No planes in the air, nobody in airports, nobody changing hotels.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> About 3.00am UK would be my guess.
>>
>> No planes in the air, nobody in airports, nobody changing hotels.
>>

I would imagine so, all manner of difficulty if their license would be to be suspended whilst they had aircraft airborne.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - CGNorwich
Operation Matterhorn in progress. Positioning flights in air.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> Operation Matterhorn in progress. Positioning flights in air.
>>

I think they started putting aircraft in place on Saturday morning.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - CGNorwich
Yes they did. Now in full swing.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Forests need regular fires to clean out the dead wood, the weak trees and give the healthy new tress space to grow and develop. Artificially preventing forest fires without taking any other action to compensate does the forest no favours.

It's much the same with a commercial or industrial environment.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Kevin
The signs that TC were in trouble have been there for months. They've been cutting their choice of long haul destinations since the beginning of the year. They were the only travel company with direct flights from Gatwick to Holguin in Cuba but warned us months ago that this was ending in November. Some flights to other Caribbean destinations were also under threat.

I've been looking at their website over the last couple of months and it was fairly obvious that they were desperate for bookings. The price for an identical holiday was dropping from one day to the next. £300pp less than the same dates two years ago.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
Looks like flights currently inbound to UK could be last for TCX.

www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/22/thomas-cook-in-last-ditch-talks-to-avoid-collapse
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>The signs that TC were in trouble have been there for months years...

...beginning back in the 80s when Maxwell bought shares, during WestLB's ownership in the 90s, in the 00's when the German company C&N bought them, and throughout the 10's as they have merged, divested, and reversed.

All the while making no significant changes to their business model other than removing bits of it.

Fundamentally ignoring falling and changing demand.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - martin aston
Aston junior flew out to Las Vegas by TC on business yesterday. Due back Friday. I thought it was ill-advised of their travel team to make the booking a few weeks ago but at least his company will cover any additional costs if the apparently inevitable happens.

Mind you, as long as he still has a hotel, there are worse places to be stranded!
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Good for him. One of my absolute favourite business destinations.

Where is he staying?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - martin aston
I don't know where he is staying. He is at a massive trade exhibition so I guess it's pretty central.

He will be fine. A few years back, when he was 18, he did the gap year (well four months) round the world trip. He came back unscathed so I am sure he will take this in his stride and that come Friday, when he is due to return, there will be a process in place.

I do feel sorry for those who are spending their own money and are being severely disrupted.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero
"Since then world has moved. We book flights, hotels and transfers separately. Several major airline failures in that era - AE, XL, Monarch and now likely Thomas Cook leave folks abroad
and there's still no system in place.

A failure of government."

Rubbish, pure and utter poppycock.

If you are an independent traveler, risk is one of the things you factor in. There is no way HM Gov should be financially responsible for your planning choices.

If you don't want risk you book with a bonded outfit, Government mandated, and that has now swung into action as it should.

How is this a failure of government?

 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> How is this a failure of government?

See my post at 07:25.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero
I did, and "seat only" passengers (who booked spare capacity on tour airlines because it was cheap) are independent travellers, who shoulder risk and should therefore mitigate it.


Last edited by: Zero on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 09:47
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> I did, and "seat only" passengers (who booked spare capacity on tour airlines because it
>> was cheap) are independent travellers, who shoulder risk and should therefore mitigate it.

The airline I've heard named as a nail in TCX's coffin is Jet2. I don't think their business model revolves around surplus capacity being sold off as seat only, more a question of Jet 2 Holidays filling seats on scheduled flights.

The risk to seat only pax is exactly same as that to IT travellers; the airline's gone t'zup and they're stuck abroad. There's no capacity for them to come home paddling their own canoe - that's why Titan etc are operating repatriation flights as we type. There's a cost to that and I don't think insurers will cover it. It's just daft to expect ordinary holiday makers to pony up at check in or be stuck in Dubrovnik.

It wasn't acceptable politics in 1974 to leave Clarkson's passengers begging in Spanish airport lounges hence they were brought home by the RAF. ATOL, bonding etc was supposed to ensure cost protection was properly organised and cost met by a levy on bookings.

My point is that the world has moved on. Seat only should be paying a levy so that there's a fund to repatriate them to save Duncan from getting upset at it adding a penny to his pint at Wetherspoons.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 10:08
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
My point is that the world has moved on. Seat only should be paying a levy so that there's a fund to repatriate them to save Duncan from getting upset
>> at it adding a penny to his pint at Wetherspoons.


Seems reasonable to me.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Duncan
Good to see you chaps have got this thing in perspective.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - PeterS
>> My point is that the world has moved on. Seat only should be paying a
>> levy so that there's a fund to repatriate them to save Duncan from getting upset
>> at it adding a penny to his pint at Wetherspoons.
>>

So a compulsory insurance scheme, even though many don’t or wouldn’t want it as they’ve ready got cover or are happy to take the risk? You want the protection, book a package!! Scheduled airlines are never going to support adding a further levy to their flight prices, and as a regular traveller I’d not want to pay. And what about ex EU flight deals - you could only enforce cover on the positioning flight surely...?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> So a compulsory insurance scheme, even though many don’t or wouldn’t want it as they’ve
>> ready got cover or are happy to take the risk? You want the protection, book
>> a package!! Scheduled airlines are never going to support adding a further levy to their
>> flight prices, and as a regular traveller I’d not want to pay. And what about
>> ex EU flight deals - you could only enforce cover on the positioning flight surely...?

Book a package is pretty trite advice. Apart from anything else the difference is actually not as clear as it looks.

Appreciate cover may not be needed in the business market but there's a cost in operating repatriation flights for Monarch and now TCX. Not sure airline failure is insurable under standard travel policy - cannot see insurers being too keen to cover TCX in last few weeks or MON after it came within hours of failing 12 months before the final closure.

As to practicality simply incorporate it into APD?


 Thomas Cook in trouble - PeterS

>> Book a package is pretty trite advice. Apart from anything else the difference is actually
>> not as clear as it looks.
>>
>> Appreciate cover may not be needed in the business market but there's a cost in
>> operating repatriation flights for Monarch and now TCX. Not sure airline failure is insurable under
>> standard travel policy - cannot see insurers being too keen to cover TCX in last
>> few weeks or MON after it came within hours of failing 12 months before the
>> final closure.
>>
>> As to practicality simply incorporate it into APD?
>>

The cost of repatriation will be covered by the scheme already in place, and, as far I can see will cost nowhere near £600m since only 150,000 are from the UK. Doesn’t that work out at £4k per passenger? I’ve just paid a little more than that for 2 return BA Club World tickets to Singapore next month en-route Japan for the rugby. Could have travelled for less via the middle east or China, but you know what, I did my research and didn’t think the saving worthwhile. Could have spent more and flown direct...

Even if it does need to cover the 450,000 that didn’t leave from the UK then the CAA has an insurance policy AFAIK?

Worth thinking through more... as some, albeit a smallish proportion, of the saving in ex E.U. flights is avoiding the long haul APD ex UK, which from memory can be £170 a ticket. That’s almost £700 for a family of 4, so you can easily imagine someone booking a holiday online to the Far East and ending up picking a flight via an intermediate E.U. airport. Who rescues them when the Eastern European or Asian airline lets them down. Are you saying the CAA has to underwrite airline failures worldwide on behalf of UK citizens...? All for an increase in APD on the E.U. leg only?

Or to stretch an analogy a bit thin... I known virtually nothing about fixing cars. So, you know what, I don’t bother buying cars that have a reputation for being unreliable, or rely on ones that are old. If I needed to, I’d take out a breakdown policy. I wouldn’t expect the government to put a levy on all car sales to fund a breakdown service to recover me just because I hadn’t bothered ;)
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
@Peter S.

TBH insurance for repatriation has become a bit of a red herring. The de-facto position for Monarch and again now for TCX is that CAA organise flights and they're used by all whether on IT package or not. I've not even heard Simon Calder (the media's go to for travel) asked to opine on whether travel insurance covered return flights.

Between 10:00Z and 22:00Z today there are six repatriation flights from Corfu alone. All have flight numbers for UK operator Titan but in reality are being operated by third parties - some at least airlines from Baltics that were previously covering summer flights for TCX. That won't be cheap.

Passengers who were on IT flights will have paid a levy towards the 'disaster' fund underwriting those costs. Those sitting next to them who booked flight and hotel separately will not.

Just need to level the playing field that's all.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - PeterS
Sorry Bromp - I wasn’t clear - my comment on insurance was intended to mean the insurance backing that the ATT, administered by the CAA AFAIk, has in place :)

I still think the line has to be drawn somewhere; fine, if there’s a plan in place why not use it to help others - it’d be churlish not to. But to expect it is going too far IMO

One thing I hadn’t realised, but that seems to be coming out now, is that ATOL protection only covers costs incurred after the collapse of the operator - debts up to then fall to the administrator. But, even more reason to pay by credit card!
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> One thing I hadn’t realised, but that seems to be coming out now, is that
>> ATOL protection only covers costs incurred after the collapse of the operator - debts up
>> to then fall to the administrator.

That's curious.

CAA head Deidre Hutton was on radio this morning. Mainly seemed to be responding to stories about people being prevented from leaving hotels etc until bills nominally owed by TCX were paid. Particular reference to an incident in Cuba where the authorities had sided with hoteliers abd diplomatic intervention had been needed. Seemed so on to say that ATOL protected customers who are booked but yet to travel will get their money back. She was equally clear that those not protected could try a claim on their bank or travel insurer but if that brought no joy they were in the same queue as all the other unsecured creditors.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - tyrednemotional
>>
>> One thing I hadn’t realised, but that seems to be coming out now, is that
>> ATOL protection only covers costs incurred after the collapse of the operator - debts up
>> to then fall to the administrator. But, even more reason to pay by credit card!
>>

...from the ATOL website:

"If the business collapses before you travel, the scheme will provide a refund or replacement holiday."
 Thomas Cook in trouble - PeterS
>> ...from the ATOL website:
>>
>> "If the business collapses before you travel, the scheme will provide a refund or replacement holiday."

Indeed, but what was said on the news was slightly different. If you hadn’t travelled you’d get your money back, eventually. If you had travelled out, but Thomas Cook hadn’t paid for your hotel, ATOL only covered the the hotel cost for nights post liquidation, and of course repatriation. The accommodation cost between and arrival and liquidation, if not prepaid, was a matter for the administrator. Whether that’s intentional, a loophole or the result of sloppy drafting I don’t know!

Edited to add, or sloppy reporting ;)
Thanks that might explain why some hotels are giving guests bills to settle before departure.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 26 Sep 19 at 01:46
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Kevin
>Thanks that might explain why some hotels are giving guests bills to settle before departure.

Apparently TC paid hotels 60 days in arrears. They owed hotels more than £200M when they collapsed.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
I think the point is that the hotel bill after the point of collapse is covered by the scheme whereas any debt from before that moment is only a matter for the receivers and the chances are the hotel will get nothing.

The hoteliers are trying to recover money to cover the period the guests have already stayed, not for any further stay.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Kevin
I know someone who got back to Gatwick from Cuba yesterday. The hotel were asking them to pay £1000 per room per week for the whole of their stay. They were allowed to leave without paying after the British Ambassador to Cuba gave a guarantee to the Cuban authorities that the scheme would cover the costs for the full length of their stay.

If the scheme does cover the full length without recovery from insurers the final cost is going to be much higher than the £100M being quoted.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
>>JET2

Interestingly it was part of the Coolchain Group (don't know if it still is). So shipping people around is similar to shipping food etc.

They leased their aircraft and had a reasonable reputation.

 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> Interestingly it was part of the Coolchain Group (don't know if it still is). So
>> shipping people around is similar to shipping food etc.

I didn't recognise name Coolchain immediately but it's mentioned in the Wiki history. They are now part of Dart Group which also includes Fowler Welch (chilled distribution).

The airline bit started off shifting flowers and tomatoes from Guernsey/Jersey under name Channel Express. Jet 2 started offering services from Leeds Bradford to Amsterdam around 15 years ago and grew from there. As well as Leeds it now has bases at Newcastle, Brum, East Midlands, Manchester, Stansted and Glasgow.

Call sign is still Channex.

For a long time their fleet was older 737-300 and -800 series machines together with 757s, I thinl mostly bought cheapish. Latterly though they've acquired new build 737-800 aircraft - a run out deal as the 800 was due to be replaced by the MAX.

The principal is Phillip Meeson who was once an aerobatic pilot flying the Pitts S2. He's still remembered for an impromptu display over Leeds Bradford airport c1976 - emptied evey pub in Yeadon...
 Thomas Cook in trouble - legacylad
Talking of Yeadon, when I was a nipper living in inner city Bradford, it was incredibly exciting to spend a few hours parked on a hill overlooking the aerodrome on Sunday afternoons. This would be early 60s. We’d take my Gran along, have a wicker picnic hamper and pile into our Triumph Herald estate.
I never dreamt in a million years that by the late 60s we’d be flying from Yeadon on our annual jollies to Jersey. And by coincidence I’ve just booked a Jet2 flight this AM to Jersey for next June.
And it won’t be in a Handley Page Dart Herald turbo prop plane ( see what I did there...Jet2 Dart..geddit ?)
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> Talking of Yeadon, when I was a nipper living in inner city Bradford, it was
>> incredibly exciting to spend a few hours parked on a hill overlooking the aerodrome on
>> Sunday afternoons.

Watching planes as a family outing was a thing to do as aviation took off on the post war years. Somebody on another site recently circulated pictures of the old Elmdon terminal at Brum with cars parked alongside and families enjoying a picnic while watching the goings and comings.

The hill overlooking LBA was a popular place used well and courteously until well into seventies. It was quite well terraced so one row's occupants could see over those in row below. Then it began to get torn up by scrambling bikes, off roaders with four wheels and then more nefarious stuff including dumping asbestos.

It's now closed to motor traffic though it's only a short walk up a public footpath from the industrial estate by Murgatroyds fish and chip place.

Was actually at LBA yesterday - Mrs B and I had a weekend in Harrogate to see Ned Boulting and David Millar (Tour de France TV commentary) do a stage night around the world champs currently taking place there. Didn't try to get onto Plane Trees but there's good viewing from around the cemetery and some informal parking on Haw Lane. Good views as landings were coming in over the Chevin. Only there 45 mins or so but four or five landings and a take off or two.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
BBC news reporting that the cost of repatriation is going to be "close to £100m" - seems more like it
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
Sombody always wins on a liquidation:

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/city-firms-instructed-to-clear-up-aftermath-of-thomas-cook-collapse/5101546.article
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
The BBC reports are annoying me.

They are reporting it as some huge ordeal for those "stranded" abroad. For the vast majority they will continue their holiday as planned, come home on the appointed day, and that will be that. Though I am sure there will be some stress, it is hardly an ordeal.

For those who have not yet travelled then there is disappointment of course, but again the vast majority will get most/all of their money back.

It is reasonable for the British Government to repatriate stranded people. It is not reasonable for those people to whine that it's a little bit difficult, inconvenient or disappointing. Rather they should be thankful that the Government is prepared to step in to help them out after their private arrangements went wrong.

And as an aside I think the Government's responsibility should end as soon as they are on UK soil. Taking them to the door is a private contractual responsibility, not a Government one.

So whether it is whining customers or an overly dramatic BBC, it is becoming irritating.

I deal with proper hardship all the time, as I suspect Bromp does. This sort of pretend suffering p***es me right off.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> The BBC reports are annoying me.

Thee BBC is just the vector but there was a bloke on the midday news due to fly back from Corfu today. Apparently nobody has told him anything.

It took me less than a minute of Google this morning to find the page on the CAA website about repatriation flights. It's then just a link to 'today's flights' and the Greece>Corfu.

All except one are at same time as it would have been. The exception is to East Midlands which goes just after midnight instead of around 9pm.

I do feel slightly sorry for the woman supposed to go to Glasgow and who's flight is now to Birmingham with a coach to GLA. I wouldn't like 6hrs on a bus either but it's not life threatening.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 15:46
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>Thee BBC is just the vector

I don't know what that means. "Vector"?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Manatee
Vector, noun. - an organism, typically a biting insect or tick, that transmits a disease or parasite from one animal or plant to another.

In this case the tick is presumably the BBC, and the disease is non-news.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Interesting use of "just" in that case.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bobby
There seems to be a total lack of sympathy and understanding on this thread. Many are basing their opinions on their knowledge, their habits, their resources. Maybe not everyone is as wealthy, clued up , resourceful or has a big credit limit credit card to fall back on?

Many people will have taken a package holiday as they do not have the skills or knowledge to tackle individual legs of journey independently, sourcing accomodation etc. Buy from a reputable company and take all that hassle away,. Maybe , because you don't have the skills to do it any other way.

I could imagine there would be a lot of people who do not have google on their phone whether that be due to lack of data abroad, wifi or maybe don't have a smartphone (there are still many people in this boat). At a hotel with no rep, a reception staff that have pigeon English and maybe surrounded by other holiday makers who are all hearing confliciting information. Or maybe they are the only TC clients at that hotel for some reason.

Have sympathy for the ones that were due to go out on holiday which is now cancelled. This may have been the first time abroad, may have been the result of saving for two years, all sorts of sacrifices could have been made to get that holiday. Yes, they will utlimately get their money back but this is the two weeks they have booked off from work, they can't book another holiday until they get the refund so its ruined for them.

 Thomas Cook in trouble - Manatee
You're quite right Bobby. People will be worried by all sorts of things, including commitments at home, health concerns, availability of cash if they aren't taken care of, and so on. And such people are more likely to have put their arrangements in the hands of a tour operator or travel agent.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero

>> I could imagine there would be a lot of people who do not have google
>> on their phone whether that be due to lack of data abroad, wifi or maybe
>> don't have a smartphone (there are still many people in this boat).

Well I'm afraid that is clearly well off the mark, I can assure you most package tourists I have encountered have the latest and greatest Samsung phone gobbling up data at any price plan.

Those abroad re getting home with the minimum of fuss, most who didn't go will get their money back. Its a shame, its not a tragedy. There are far more urgent and important things to worry about.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero
I read that they had reduced their shop presence down to 500 outlets. Travel agents? good lord, what an archaic way to do business in 2019.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
>> I read that they had reduced their shop presence down to 500 outlets. Travel agents?
>> good lord, what an archaic way to do business in 2019.
>>

The number of people using travel agents has been dropping for years but I know people who still go to one because they want advice on locations that are suitable for them, they don't have the internet and they like to be able to flick through brochures. It suits some people and I suspect there will be independent agents in the high street to cater for their needs.

I haven't been on a package holiday for years, but I recall going in to a travel agent and quite enjoyed the experience. Your were treated well and not rushed. Talked through the required documentation required, recommended good places to visit (I know they got commission) etc.
Last edited by: zippy on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 18:11
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero

>> The number of people using travel agents has been dropping for years but I know
>> people who still go to one because they want advice on locations that are suitable
>> for them, they don't have the internet and they like to be able to flick
>> through brochures. It suits some people and I suspect there will be independent agents in
>> the high street to cater for their needs.

Not round my way there isn't, I have two within an 8 mile radius. Plenty of specialist internet and phone based agents who will book you yak hiking in Outer Mongolia. If travel outlets was viable, Thos Cook would still be going strong wouldn't they.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 23 Sep 19 at 18:18
 Thomas Cook in trouble - zippy
>>There are far more urgent and important things to worry about.

I do feel for the 9,000 in this country and all the others abroad who are likely to lose their jobs over this.

I don't know if anything can be salvaged from the business with some areas surviving but I doubt it as there tends to be few assets to sell other than a now tarnished brand name and they are not doing anything that others are not doing already and who will just sweep up their business.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero

>> I don't know if anything can be salvaged from the business with some areas surviving
>> but I doubt it as there tends to be few assets to sell other than
>> a now tarnished brand name and they are not doing anything that others are not
>> doing already and who will just sweep up their business.

Which is why they collapsed, all they had was a brand name. And they were not doing anything other tour operators were doing, or they would still be viable. It was an archaic business model.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> I do feel for the 9,000 in this country and all the others abroad who
>> are likely to lose their jobs over this.

Not just the 9k or so directly employed. Lot of jobs in supply/service chains for the airline and the high street shops too.

Colleague was advising someone today who'd been made redundant by an airport caterer with contract to supply TCX flights.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - martin aston
Bromptonaut you are right for European flights but so far for my son who is in Las Vegas all the site says is to call BA or Virgin call centres. Not sure if it's good that two airlines are involved or if this is going to add to the confusion.
Also the CAA call centre number just seems to link to a very, very long voice message that is just someone reading out the website generic info. My sons mobile kept dropping out when he dialled into it from Vegas so I dialled from UK but there seemed no way to get hold of a human being.
Luckily he has a few days and BA ir Virgin will sort him out. Early days.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> Bromptonaut you are right for European flights but so far for my son who is
>> in Las Vegas all the site says is to call BA or Virgin call centres.
>> Not sure if it's good that two airlines are involved or if this is going
>> to add to the confusion.


I'd looked mostly at European flights plus some fromm Caribbean which result in airlines that are not routine in UK putting in appearances.

Judging by CAA message they've contracted with BA/VS who presumably have enough seats spare to accommodate TCX pax at Vegas.

Which airline flew your son to Vegas?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - martin aston
Brompt, he flew out Thomas Cook airlines from Manchester.

Anyway he is now sorted. He was due to fly home on Friday 27th. Virgin had no seats available for over a week later but BA have got him on this Friday's flight to Gatwick.

A good result in the circumstances. As others have said, those with the tougher problem are the employees looking for new jobs.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
deal with proper hardship all the time, as I suspect Bromp does. This sort of pretend suffering p***es me right off.

The staff (we're friends with one in quite a seniorish position) are the ones that truly suffer, people have mortgages etc to pay, no doubt they may qualify for statutory redundancy pay but that won't keep the lights on for long.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
The head of caa was on the bbc news, apparently only 60% of passengers are covered by the abta guarantee.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
Upon checking the cover I had for my Vietnam trip:-

Cover for any amounts already paid and unused for your flight if the scheduled airline on which
you are booked to travel stops trading before your departure.
£1,000
• your flight is booked independently of your accommodation and you have not been
offered an alternative/refund from any other agent.
• the scheduled airline is not in administration or, in the USA and Canada, in Chapter 11 at
the time of taking out your policy.

and

f your travel plans are disrupted
If your scheduled airline stops trading
Cover for any amounts already paid and unused for your flight, if the scheduled airline on
which you are booked to travel stops trading after your departure.
£1,000
• your flight is booked independently of your accommodation and you have not been
offered an alternative/refund from any other agent.
• the scheduled airline is not in administration or, in the USA and Canada, in Chapter 11 at
the time of taking out your policy.
• you are at the airport/port/station.
• you have obtained written confirmation of the delay from your booking agents, airline or
transport provider.
• you are unable to recoup costs from any other provider or agency.
• your trip is more than 2 days in duration.
• you are claiming for the circumstances listed and not for your failure to arrive in time to
check in due to any other reason such as traffic, road closures and/or adverse weather
conditions.
• you have independent written confirmation of the circumstances.
• you are not claiming for your
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
I see there is a report that some Thomas Cook staff intend to sue Thomas Cook over their redundancy.

It's not clear why, I can only think that as some staff were laid off (9,000) and some where not (3,000) they are maintaining that there was an unfair selection process without appropriate consultation.

Even if they win I'm not quite sure where they think any money will come from.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> I see there is a report that some Thomas Cook staff intend to sue Thomas
>> Cook over their redundancy.

Do you have a link?

Not doubting just curious.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
This actually isn't the report I read, but it's the same thing..( avoiding a paywall)..

www.bbc.com/news/business-49851628
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 27 Sep 19 at 16:05
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
As I'm sure you know there are quite strict rules about management behaviour in these circumstances and the period leading up to them, especially around communication. There is also a load of old rubbish in that report.

But I imagine the lawyers have got a clue and I would assume that it is around selection and consultation. Essentially changing redundancy to unfair dismissal.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 14 Oct 19 at 10:33
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
Bit more Googling suggests it's around Protective Awards and lack of consultation:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/explaining-your-protective-award/explaining-your-protective-award

The name Simpson Millar keeps cropping up in reports; their website suggests they specialise in this sort of thing.

www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/employment-law-solicitors/protective-award-claim-for-employees/

HMG steps into the defunct employer's shoes and meets the bill. Another penny on Duncan's pint at Wetherspoons.

The cynic in me says it's all relatively straightforward and anyone with a bit of time and reasonable form filling skills could save the lawyers fee. OTOH if it's just boilerplate stuff on ET forms and nobody defends the lawyer's % might be quite low and they've go PI insurance if they mess up.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
I understand the liquidator is providing ex TCX employees with fact packs about their rights and actions they need to take next. May even cover this.

I've spoken to one ex-employee over benefits. Offer of signpost to redundancy etc advice was declined so maybe either stuff above is good or they're unionised and the Union is on the case.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>The cynic in me says it's all relatively straightforward and anyone with a bit of time and reasonable form filling skills could save the lawyers fee.

Insofar as the employers are concerned I entirely agree. Insofar as the employees are concerned experience says that you are quite wrong.

The process is defined and determined and all a company needs to do to follow it is to understand it and intend to do so.

If they have failed, then roe specifically HR have failed. The very people that your wronged employee would need to write to. They will be brushed off by a department in denial that their boss was so stupid.

They absolutely 100% should get together with a lawyer and have a go in bulk. Always advise someone who feels that they have been wronged in such an instance to seek out any pothers and work together.

I have zero time, zero sympathy and zero understanding for any company, director or employee who screws up the process. It's pretty obvious and well defined.

Incompetent amateurs pee me off.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 14 Oct 19 at 10:33
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
Mark,

My comments about DIY related specifically to companies that, like TCX, have ceased trading in short order. Clearly a struggling business staving off bankruptcy isn't going to go through the consultation hoops my employers did when abolilition by statute was, predictably, happening. Yet law, it seems, presumes they will.

It's a lacuna and on my reading the ET proceedings that unlock extra cash are a formality.

Very different to allegations that an outfit that is reorganizing or rationalizing has failed.

Only my own view. Unless there's published step by step guidance on CA, ACAS or other reputable website for securing such payments in cases like BHS, TCX etc I'd be referring to pro bono or direct to possibility of no win no fee.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 27 Sep 19 at 20:56
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>struggling business staving off bankruptcy isn't going to go through the consultation hoops my employers did when abolilition by statute was, predictably, happening. Yet law, it seems, presumes they will.

Business demand can excuse, and in fact does excuse, many things. *However* I think the issue is here that they made 9,000 redundant and retained 3,000. I suspect that what the lawyers will focus on was how it was decided which employees were put in which group.

And any fule know not to make mistakes in that area.

Because the law *does* expect even-handedness, and so it should. Had I been in TC I would not have made such a school boy error. Mind you, I wouldn't have screwed up the business either.

And I have no sympathy for those that did.

TC crashed for obvious reasons, none of which were set in stone or pre-ordained. It could have continued had it been blessed with competent management. It was not.

FIdiots.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> Business demand can excuse, and in fact does excuse, many things. *However* I think the
>> issue is here that they made 9,000 redundant and retained 3,000. I suspect that what
>> the lawyers will focus on was how it was decided which employees were put in
>> which group.

I think you're right. The question of consultation process and Protective Claims is an issue for all employees at TCX and other liquidations. There's also a point here around those retained.

What, in your experience would lead a liquidator to retain a significant number of employees; 9,000 redundant and 3,000 kept on is 25% and seems a lot. I read somewhere that TCX cabin crew were being used on repatriation flights. Some of these use machines TCX had chartered for summer and operated in its own livery with pilots from the aircraft's Baltic state of registry but TCX cabin crew. Now seem to be operated by Titan Airways who have presumably taken over the charters from TCX and will be paid by HMG/ATOL.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero
I suspect that a significant proportion of the cabin crew (not flight deck) were on minimum hours contracts, not sure how they affect your employment rights. They may also have had subsidiary businesses like the aircraft engineering.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
Staff have been retained at Manchester in order to comply with the winding down of the airline side of things to ensure compliance with CAA rules. They are being paid for by the administrators - my friend (who lost his job) has had numerous job offers from other airlines via Linkdin. He's looking for work locally though and does not want to re-locate.

Zero - "Minimum Hours" or "Zero Hours" - people on Zero hours are now treated as employees. I was on Zero hours in the NHS and I actually rolled up annual leave entitlements (I took the money) and paid pension contributions. One of the guys I worked with was on a minimum hours contract i.e. he was contracted to work a minimum number of hours every year. He was treated like other employees.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>What, in your experience would lead a liquidator to retain a significant number of employees

There's so many things that it would be impossible to give a list. It can be everything from those keeping the office running, customer support through to handymen, never mind the airline operational side.

25% in itself isn't a lot, it depends on how long for. Once there is nobody on holiday and thus no operational activities then there it is down to the receivers to work out the best way of preserving or realising value from what is remaining. So for so many people you'd expect it to be very short term unless part of the business will be sold as an operation.

There are always inaccuracies in the number of people around, but that's no biggie in the scheme of things. The fraught part is deciding which group people are in - though again it will depend on the timescales concerned.

It's fairly easy to justify keeping aircrew but not keeping sales staff. And, within reason, even if one gets the numbers wrong, it is typically not an employment issue.

Business needs can justify many things, even including changing contract terms, in the cause of process of receivership/liquidation.

It is much more tricky to justify keeping this member of aircrew but not that member. And it is more than just being right, it is justifying the fairness and appropriateness of the process.

Though it depends on impact; you're not going to get much sympathy if you will simply be retained one week less than someone else, for example.

Also don't forget if any part of the business/operation is sold there is the potential question of TUPE.

Even at times of distress the company still has to consider the normal process, including selection. And if they're going to screw up, it will be here. But usually the receiver does not screw up. It will be the outgoing management if it is anyone.

Don't forget that one of the things which changes is the amount of time that an (ex)employee has to register a claim. I don't remember what it is, but it is not long.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
According to the BBC News the repatriation has cost "the taxpayer" £40m - significantly less (well less than 10% less) than the figures touted at the start of the whole debacle. So the sum asked for by TC of £200m seems less of a bargain now.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
I saw that report, I think a lot of the lower costs might be down to people making their own way back.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - legacylad
Why would you make your own way back ? If you’ve booked an ATOL package ( ignoring the fact the hotel hasn’t been paid & subsequent recuperations) don’t you finish your holiday and get flown home on Operation Matterhorn. If you’ve booked a TC flight only, and paid for the hotel separately, can’t you get another flight home (eventually) and claim on your travel insurance for the new flight ?
Probably too simplistic a view
Last edited by: legacylad on Tue 1 Oct 19 at 20:10
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
AIUI, although some were consolidated onto bigger aircraft the 'Matterhorn' flights mostly replicated TCX own flight schedules. Those operated by Titan even had same flight numbers, just with Titan's prefix instead of TCX. Some were actually same aircraft as Titan have taken on subfleet TCX had leased in for summer peak.

Anybody with a TCX ticket, package or not, can use those flights,

If you chose to stay longer than planned and then claim on insurance later, effectively throwing away your return, I don't think insurer would look favourably on a claim.......
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
>>I think a lot of the lower costs might be down to people making their own way back.

I doubt it. Really really doubt it. I would be floored if any significant member at all made their own way back. Why would they?

Still, lucky old taxpayer, hey?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
>> >>I think a lot of the lower costs might be down to people making their
>> own way back.
>>
>> I doubt it. Really really doubt it. I would be floored if any significant member
>> at all made their own way back. Why would they?
>>
>> Still, lucky old taxpayer, hey?
>>

I don't know but that's what the report said, there were far fewer people turning up then the caa expected. I'm pretty sure the number quoted was 7 TC flights had been put onto one a380 because of people making their own way back and there were a load of spare seats still.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - martin aston
In an earlier post I wrote about my son who was in Las Vegas after they folded. Well he got back by BA on his original booked day. He had to go to Heathrow rather than Manchester.

He got a whole bank of three seats to himself which was surprising as he expected it to be rammed.

Fair play to the authorities and the airlines for resolving this.

Recognition is due to the volunteer TC staff who have been assisting customers in UK to make claims and rebook with other operators.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
He had
>> to go to Heathrow rather than Manchester.
>>
>>

Did they put on a bus to get him back to Manchester?
 Thomas Cook in trouble - martin aston

>>
>> Did they put on a bus to get him back to Manchester?

Sooty, nope. His colleague's son picked them up by car.

I have not had the full story as to why but I think BA were trying to fly them on from LGW to Manchester. As they couldn't see how to do so the BA agent was reluctant to take their booking. Rather than risk losing their places on the repatriation flight from Las Vegas they took the decision just to accept the flight to LGW and say they'd make their own way to Manchester.

There is a time for arguing for your rights. This wasn't one of them.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
Sensible !
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> I don't know but that's what the report said, there were far fewer people turning
>> up then the caa expected. I'm pretty sure the number quoted was 7 TC flights
>> had been put onto one a380 because of people making their own way back and

I suspect the journalist who wrote report or his sub has mangled the numbers.

An Airbus A380 of Malaysian Airlines is part of the repatriation fleet. It's mostly been used between Manchester and the Balearics. Configured for long haul it will have first, business and premium economy as well as bog standard seats. Not all will be used on this operation.

Presumably the Matterhorn operation knows how many people were booked on any given TCX flight. Instruction to passengers is to watch the caa/thomas cook website and then turn up and check in at least three hours before departure. Until passengers have checked in they won't know if there are no shows. Too late then to add another flight's load to the manifest.

If there are people from seven flights on one A380 then TCX's loads were poor and it's no wonder they failed.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - sooty123
If there are people from seven flights on one A380 then TCX's loads were poor
>> and it's no wonder they failed.
>>

Might have misheard but I'm pretty sure that's what he said. They mentioned in the same report how due to much lower numbers it was millions less than they had first thought.

They used business on this particular flight as there was a couple well chuffed they'd got to fly back in business. When the camera shots of the interior were shown, I'd guess 50-60% full.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
That's what I heard as well sooty.

 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> That's what I heard as well sooty.

No reason to doubt it's been reported that numbers are less than expected, slight doubt such a report is accurate.

I'd be surprised, on grounds of cost and practicality, if reason for low numbers is that people have returned home 'en masse' at their own expense and intrigued as to what other explanation there might be.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - R.P.
If it was me, depending on commitments at home and how complicated it was within the resort, I would have found my own way home by one means or another, especially in Europe it wouldn't be that hard or expensive by plane, train or motorcycle...!
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Runfer D'Hills
Me too, I'm not very good at patience or being processed at the best of times. I think I'd probably hire a car, or if necessary a series of them, and just make my own way if it was anywhere in Europe I was stuck in.

More challenging if there were oceans to cross of course.

 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> If it was me, depending on commitments at home and how complicated it was within
>> the resort, I would have found my own way home by one means or another,
>> especially in Europe it wouldn't be that hard or expensive by plane, train or motorcycle...!

I would too but probably not if there was flight back on same time same day as I'd planned?

Interesting to see if anyone comes forward and tells how they made own way home.

Another factor this week will be that customers coming home now have been away since at least Sun 22 September. Anyone who went out for a week or less on last TCX flights is home already.

What would have been separate TCX A321 flights from Ibiza to Birmingham and East Midlands were consolidated to just the one this morning operated by Titan using one of the Avion A321's originally leased to TCX for the summer. . BHX passengers got a bus ride for last bit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 2 Oct 19 at 14:21
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
I should think for a family it would be expensive to return another way as well as pointless.

Since they are/were all going to receive a flight home at around the same time, why on earth would they bother?

No, I don't think so.

Crap media figures I should think.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Zero
Looking back on this, you have to admire the way the CAA handled this. In a period of two weeks, They set up and ran the UK's 4th largest airline, in one case having a hot spare on the apron on the very hour TC collapsed, merely redirecting the pax to another departure gate, Every pax left on the scheduled day of departure, with a mere 10% arriving at an alternate airport. And all this in a period of narrow bodied capacity shortage due to the 737max fiasco.

 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Essentially in 2017 the CEO of TC, Peter Fankhauser [Swiss] received a £750,000 bonus of which £500,000 was in cash.

www.bbc.com/news/business-50053594

Now a cross party committee of MPs is conducting an investigation, what with them being experts in business and all, to decide what happened.

One of their questions was to ask if the CEO would return this bonus from 2 years ago. [he hasn't received a bonus since] Apparently it is to repay that marvelous group "the taxpayers".

Even if the man was incompetent, he had a contract and that bonus was in line with his performance and his contract. If it now seems his contract was not appropriate, then how about going after the people that agreed it -> the shareholders. How about also going after the people who appointed him? -> the shareholders.

However, I think that if the MPs stopped being hypocritical t***s playing to the media and set a precedent by returning their payments for years where the country didn't do well, then perhaps the CEO should consider doing the same.

Surely this can't be MPs just saying what other people should do and seeing themselves exempt from such duties?

Fidiots.

What about the Hedge Funds who made an absolute b***** fortune out of the collapse of TC by shorting the company massively? Will our glorious MPs go after them next?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 15 Oct 19 at 15:30
 Thomas Cook in trouble - Bromptonaut
>> Even if the man was incompetent, he had a contract and that bonus was in
>> line with his performance and his contract.

His job was to keep a business that was top heavy with debt and encountering difficult trading conditions (fuel, forex problems with Euro and Dollar, changing customer habits and competition from Jet 2 et al) going.

He did that.

Lot of abuse thrown at final CEO of Monarch after it went t'zup. He was a last throw of the dice, the die had been cast years earlier.
 Thomas Cook in trouble - No FM2R
Monarch is a strange one.

I don't think it was ever solid, not even in the 80s when it began scheduled flights. It was always on the edge and so particularly susceptible to things like terrorism, economic downturns and competition.

Swaffield joined in 2015 I think, Monarch had been in trouble for at least 20 years. People commented on the speed with which he set up his own consultancy. I think they forget that he, like them, was an employee and therefore soon to be redundant and unemployed. I think he had a few days headstart which was unfair, but that's hardly the crime of the century.

I think Monarch was unfix-able. It had originally forced itself into a market space which didn't really exist and which Monarch wasn't really suited to fill. That's a disciplined, hard-hearted, cutthroat business and Monarch was never any of those. nor did it's company culture lend itself to such a change.

The fact that the CAA insist that any insolvent UK Airline must cease flying immediately is unhelpful. Theoretically it prevents the airline incurring further losses, but it also prevents them shutting down operations in an orderly fashion. In reality it insists that ATOS, The Government and the Insurance companies pick up the repatriation bill rather than it adding to the airline's losses. A fundamentally flawed position, I think.

Undoubtedly O'Leary did everything he could to screw them up and hurry their demise. He needed the pilots, he most certainly didn't need the competition and he could do with the planes.

The involvement of Greybull Capital is worth a look. They and their partners invested in Comet (went bust), M Local (went bust) Riley's Snooker (went bust), bought British Steel for £1 (that's not going well), Monarch Airlines (went bust) etc. etc. In fact their management has some relationship to previous partners in Lehman's.

Greybull is not without it's successes, but it seems to make rather a lot of money in management fees billed to companies that they've bought to rescue but that subsequently fail.

Goodness knows if there is anything untoward, and even if there is it'll be manipulative and cynical business practice rather than anything illegal, but perhaps our glorious MPs would be better looking there if they want a whipping boy or scapegoat.

Or the world could just stop confusing business, charity, profit and entitlement.
Latest Forum Posts