This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Going well this Brexit thing, eh?
12
11
In reply to john arran:
"The airline reported a loss of £291m for the year to October 2016".
Your Brexit obsession is rather cute.
"The airline reported a loss of £291m for the year to October 2016".
Your Brexit obsession is rather cute.
21
10
In reply to john arran:
Monarch's financial problems started in 2009. When was the Brexit disaster, again?
Monarch's financial problems started in 2009. When was the Brexit disaster, again?
12
In reply to Big Ger:
So you think a major devaluation in the currency of their income, compared to that of a large part of their expenses, had nothing at all to do with it? Dream on.
So you think a major devaluation in the currency of their income, compared to that of a large part of their expenses, had nothing at all to do with it? Dream on.
21
8
In reply to john arran:
I never said anything of the sort did I?
Though, as can be seen, to try to point score for your Brexit obsession, makes you end up with mud on your face.
" (Oct 2016,) Monarch Group, the UK budget airline, has secured a last-minute £165m cash injection from Greybull Capital, its controlling shareholder, enabling the company to renew its operating licence with the UK aviation regulator.
Greybull, the investment vehicle of the London-based Meyohas Brothers, rescued Monarch from near collapse in 2014 by buying it from the Swiss-Italian Mantegazza family."
I never said anything of the sort did I?
Though, as can be seen, to try to point score for your Brexit obsession, makes you end up with mud on your face.
" (Oct 2016,) Monarch Group, the UK budget airline, has secured a last-minute £165m cash injection from Greybull Capital, its controlling shareholder, enabling the company to renew its operating licence with the UK aviation regulator.
Greybull, the investment vehicle of the London-based Meyohas Brothers, rescued Monarch from near collapse in 2014 by buying it from the Swiss-Italian Mantegazza family."
Post edited at 06:58
6
9
In reply to Big Ger:
You apparently chose not to say it explicitly, but left it as a clear implication, showing the kind of head-in-the-sand unwillingness to face the realities of Brexit disaster that are now showing almost everywhere we turn. How long will you be able to ignore it?
Edit: and your extra quote doesn't help your case at all. Buying the company before the Brexit vote suggests some expectation of either profitability or value increase. Now, since the Brexit vote, they seem to be left with neither.
> I never said anything of the sort did I?
You apparently chose not to say it explicitly, but left it as a clear implication, showing the kind of head-in-the-sand unwillingness to face the realities of Brexit disaster that are now showing almost everywhere we turn. How long will you be able to ignore it?
Edit: and your extra quote doesn't help your case at all. Buying the company before the Brexit vote suggests some expectation of either profitability or value increase. Now, since the Brexit vote, they seem to be left with neither.
Post edited at 07:07
14
2
5
15
In reply to Big Ger:
Well reported in the financial press that monarch was suffering this year from the collapse in the £ and having to pay for airline fuel in $.
Last year they make a profit , this year a 1/4 billion loss.
Well reported in the financial press that monarch was suffering this year from the collapse in the £ and having to pay for airline fuel in $.
Last year they make a profit , this year a 1/4 billion loss.
23
In reply to neilh:
I certainly would expect rising costs to be a factor, but, as ever, I expect the reality to be a little more nuanced than the collapse being simply due to a 10% increase in the price of airline fuel. If that were the only reason wouldn't we expect to see EasyJet,Jet2 and BA also fold in the next few months?
Confronted by the press, it's convenient for senior management to blame Brexit for their weak performance instead of their own incompetence or lack of competitiveness, isn't it?
Any firm that's had to secure emergency funding twice in three years is on a fundamentally weak footing. In fact, they are already bust. It may be that the price of kerosene is the straw that broke the camel's back, or simply that the owners are twice bitten, thrice shy. It's too soon to tell.
> Well reported in the financial press that monarch was suffering this year from the collapse in the £ and having to pay for airline fuel in $.
> Last year they make a profit , this year a 1/4 billion loss.
I certainly would expect rising costs to be a factor, but, as ever, I expect the reality to be a little more nuanced than the collapse being simply due to a 10% increase in the price of airline fuel. If that were the only reason wouldn't we expect to see EasyJet,Jet2 and BA also fold in the next few months?
Confronted by the press, it's convenient for senior management to blame Brexit for their weak performance instead of their own incompetence or lack of competitiveness, isn't it?
Any firm that's had to secure emergency funding twice in three years is on a fundamentally weak footing. In fact, they are already bust. It may be that the price of kerosene is the straw that broke the camel's back, or simply that the owners are twice bitten, thrice shy. It's too soon to tell.
10
In reply to john arran:
Cheap shot
An airline should be able to cope with currency fluctuations, its part of their business. They have also struggled with the effects of terrorism and the rise of Easyjet et al and the changing market.
I feel most sorry for the employees.
Cheap shot
An airline should be able to cope with currency fluctuations, its part of their business. They have also struggled with the effects of terrorism and the rise of Easyjet et al and the changing market.
I feel most sorry for the employees.
5
2
In reply to john arran:
The same would apply to all their competitors who are selling airline tickets to Brits, so no, I wouldn't think that a change in £/$ is the primary factor.
> So you think a major devaluation in the currency of their income, compared to that of a large part of their expenses, had nothing at all to do with it? Dream on.
The same would apply to all their competitors who are selling airline tickets to Brits, so no, I wouldn't think that a change in £/$ is the primary factor.
6
4
In reply to BnB:
Those airlines have other income streams outside the uk to counterbalance the devaluation . Monarch is basically a uk based company.
Those airlines have other income streams outside the uk to counterbalance the devaluation . Monarch is basically a uk based company.
8
In reply to neilh:
Maybe other airlines have successfully hedged against rising fuel costs?
Edited to add: As an upside this might help Ryanair fill their pilot vacancies...
Maybe other airlines have successfully hedged against rising fuel costs?
Edited to add: As an upside this might help Ryanair fill their pilot vacancies...
Post edited at 08:53
2
2
In reply to john arran:
Just like with Ryan air, it's been a raise to the bottom for years, they charge too little to fly and have such a small margin they have zero buffer.
Just like with Ryan air, it's been a raise to the bottom for years, they charge too little to fly and have such a small margin they have zero buffer.
1
In reply to john arran:
Monarch has been financially dodgy for several years. I was stranded abroad 4 or 5 years ago when they failed to pay their fuel bill and the aircraft was not allowed to take off.
I agree Brexit has had an impact but why are those who are keen to point this out not so keen to also state that terrorism has also played a role especially in the Med areas.
Not going so well this multi-culture thing eh?
Al
Monarch has been financially dodgy for several years. I was stranded abroad 4 or 5 years ago when they failed to pay their fuel bill and the aircraft was not allowed to take off.
I agree Brexit has had an impact but why are those who are keen to point this out not so keen to also state that terrorism has also played a role especially in the Med areas.
Not going so well this multi-culture thing eh?
Al
8
2
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Hedging deals run out sooner or later.
Well there is a couple of weeks work before they have to get jobs elsewhere.
Hedging deals run out sooner or later.
Well there is a couple of weeks work before they have to get jobs elsewhere.
In reply to john arran:
For the first time in my life I've been caught up with an airline going bust
I was due to fly out to Spain next Saturday with Monarch for a week's hiking in the Sierras. Been phoning and on line since 7 am this morning and have managed to find 3 seats with EasyJet for Sunday, so will only miss a day, but it's costing us an extra £55 each one way, plus whatever the hold luggage costs . Fortunately my mate used his credit card when he booked with Monarch 3 months ago, so hopefully we should get a refund in due course.
For the first time in my life I've been caught up with an airline going bust
I was due to fly out to Spain next Saturday with Monarch for a week's hiking in the Sierras. Been phoning and on line since 7 am this morning and have managed to find 3 seats with EasyJet for Sunday, so will only miss a day, but it's costing us an extra £55 each one way, plus whatever the hold luggage costs . Fortunately my mate used his credit card when he booked with Monarch 3 months ago, so hopefully we should get a refund in due course.
In reply to john arran:
And what of those in the remain camp who actively talked the currency down during the referendum, so they too had nothing to do with it ? Dream on.
> So you think a major devaluation in the currency of their income, compared to that of a large part of their expenses, had nothing at all to do with it? Dream on.
And what of those in the remain camp who actively talked the currency down during the referendum, so they too had nothing to do with it ? Dream on.
1
9
In reply to GridNorth:
Is there any evidence of that? My understanding was that the impact of terrorism had lead to a greater demand for "safer" European destinations - isn't that Monarch's primary sector?
> I agree Brexit has had an impact but why are those who are keen to point this out not so keen to also state that terrorism has also played a role especially in the Med areas.
Is there any evidence of that? My understanding was that the impact of terrorism had lead to a greater demand for "safer" European destinations - isn't that Monarch's primary sector?
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I don't have any but the BBC Business News Channel said it was a factor. I was just trying to counter the Brexit paranoia
Al
I don't have any but the BBC Business News Channel said it was a factor. I was just trying to counter the Brexit paranoia
Al
Post edited at 11:01
1
In reply to GridNorth:
>
Any evidence?
W
>
> terrorism has also played a role especially in the Med areas.
>
Any evidence?
W
In reply to john arran:
Shame.
I have enjoyed flying Monarch a few times - they still hold the title (for me) of "best in-flight meal (short haul)".
Shame.
I have enjoyed flying Monarch a few times - they still hold the title (for me) of "best in-flight meal (short haul)".
1
In reply to john arran:
Last Autumn I was taken unwillingly on a tour of a couple of the beach resorts of southern Cyprus and I was shocked at the numbers of derelict hotels I saw. So where are all the package tourists going nowadays? Maybe further afield than the med if the overcrowding at hubs like Istanbul, Doha and Dubai are any evidence.
Last Autumn I was taken unwillingly on a tour of a couple of the beach resorts of southern Cyprus and I was shocked at the numbers of derelict hotels I saw. So where are all the package tourists going nowadays? Maybe further afield than the med if the overcrowding at hubs like Istanbul, Doha and Dubai are any evidence.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Don't forget that Monarch flew to Turkey and Egypt, which were affected for a while due to terror attacks and were therefore forced to compete on busier routes to places like Spain. Demand for flights to Greece also dropped due to migrants, as I understand it, which also pushed tourists towards the Western Med. You'd think that would have pushed prices up, but there was still too much competition for a limited availability of hotel places.
> Is there any evidence of that? My understanding was that the impact of terrorism had lead to a greater demand for "safer" European destinations - isn't that Monarch's primary sector?
Don't forget that Monarch flew to Turkey and Egypt, which were affected for a while due to terror attacks and were therefore forced to compete on busier routes to places like Spain. Demand for flights to Greece also dropped due to migrants, as I understand it, which also pushed tourists towards the Western Med. You'd think that would have pushed prices up, but there was still too much competition for a limited availability of hotel places.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
To compound the problem for Monarch, they had to stop flying to Egypt a couple of years ago (CAA banned this) after the Red Sea terrorist incidents. They had a major investment in this area and ended up with aircraft under utilised. They then chose to compete in the very price sensitive market to and from Spain, with aircraft designed for longer routes, so not as economical on short haul. They also refinanced about a year ago and have been struggling financially for quite a while.
These reasons are a bigger factor than Brexit in this John, although it would not have helped due to the fall in the Pound.
> Monarch's financial problems started in 2009. When was the Brexit disaster, again?
To compound the problem for Monarch, they had to stop flying to Egypt a couple of years ago (CAA banned this) after the Red Sea terrorist incidents. They had a major investment in this area and ended up with aircraft under utilised. They then chose to compete in the very price sensitive market to and from Spain, with aircraft designed for longer routes, so not as economical on short haul. They also refinanced about a year ago and have been struggling financially for quite a while.
These reasons are a bigger factor than Brexit in this John, although it would not have helped due to the fall in the Pound.
In reply to IPPurewater:
I acknowledge that there are other big factors involved too, but people seem to be going out of their way to dismiss the Brexit-caused currency devaluation as being in any way a cause. I am simply stating my opinion that Brexit will have been a very significant factor in Monarch going bust. Losing 15% of your income value compared to internationally-priced fuel costs must be almost impossible for any already-struggling company to bear. The airlines that are cited as not being in trouble have income in many currencies, so have been far less affected.
Not recognising this looks to me like head-in-the-sand denial.
I acknowledge that there are other big factors involved too, but people seem to be going out of their way to dismiss the Brexit-caused currency devaluation as being in any way a cause. I am simply stating my opinion that Brexit will have been a very significant factor in Monarch going bust. Losing 15% of your income value compared to internationally-priced fuel costs must be almost impossible for any already-struggling company to bear. The airlines that are cited as not being in trouble have income in many currencies, so have been far less affected.
Not recognising this looks to me like head-in-the-sand denial.
7
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Except fuel costs are in dollars and the fall in the value of the pound post Brexit, as almost certainly had a massive influence.
> I never said anything of the sort did I?
> Though, as can be seen, to try to point score for your Brexit obsession, makes you end up with mud on your face.
Except fuel costs are in dollars and the fall in the value of the pound post Brexit, as almost certainly had a massive influence.
3
1
In reply to john arran:
I am a remainer, work in the travel industry and think you have exaggerated the importance of Brexit in this. If the exchange played a role, it was a trigger, not a cause. Managing exchange rate fluctuations is core to running an airline and Monarch has been on the ropes for a long time. Overall, the cost of fuel is less than half what it was in 2013 (currently approx 50USD a barrel vs 110 USD in 2013).
All the other problems - terrorism etc - could be described as promixate causes. The real, underlying problem is that it is virtually impossible to turn a profit on short-haul economy unless you are a low-cost carrier.
> I acknowledge that there are other big factors involved too, but people seem to be going out of their way to dismiss the Brexit-caused currency devaluation as being in any way a cause. I am simply stating my opinion that Brexit will have been a very significant factor in Monarch going bust. Losing 15% of your income value compared to internationally-priced fuel costs must be almost impossible for any already-struggling company to bear. The airlines that are cited as not being in trouble have income in many currencies, so have been far less affected.
I am a remainer, work in the travel industry and think you have exaggerated the importance of Brexit in this. If the exchange played a role, it was a trigger, not a cause. Managing exchange rate fluctuations is core to running an airline and Monarch has been on the ropes for a long time. Overall, the cost of fuel is less than half what it was in 2013 (currently approx 50USD a barrel vs 110 USD in 2013).
All the other problems - terrorism etc - could be described as promixate causes. The real, underlying problem is that it is virtually impossible to turn a profit on short-haul economy unless you are a low-cost carrier.
3
In reply to Bob Hughes:
So Monarch could well be still trading today if the trigger of Brexit hadn't been pulled? That's my point right there!
I'm not trying to claim that businesses don't go bust for other reasons, or that Monarch wasn't particularly vulnerable, or that it wouldn't have gone bust sooner or later anyway - that would be purely hypothetical and fundamentally unknowable. Only that Brexit was almost certainly a significant factor in its demise.
> If the exchange played a role, it was a trigger, not a cause.
So Monarch could well be still trading today if the trigger of Brexit hadn't been pulled? That's my point right there!
I'm not trying to claim that businesses don't go bust for other reasons, or that Monarch wasn't particularly vulnerable, or that it wouldn't have gone bust sooner or later anyway - that would be purely hypothetical and fundamentally unknowable. Only that Brexit was almost certainly a significant factor in its demise.
3
6
In reply to Bogwalloper:
"However, Monarch chief executive Andrew Swaffield said the "root cause" was terrorism in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the collapse of the market in Turkey. "
Ref :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41464934
> Any evidence?
> W
"However, Monarch chief executive Andrew Swaffield said the "root cause" was terrorism in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the collapse of the market in Turkey. "
Ref :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41464934
3
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Aside from the regal branding, they were pretty similar to the other low cost carriers. I think they had bad luck with the destinations.
> The real, underlying problem is that it is virtually impossible to turn a profit on short-haul economy unless you are a low-cost carrier.
Aside from the regal branding, they were pretty similar to the other low cost carriers. I think they had bad luck with the destinations.
In reply to john arran:
I booked a flight with them just last week for next June - thought I would get in early to get a cheap deal!!
That's £200 down the pan! No hope of getting money back
Should have booked with a reliable airline like Ryan Air
I booked a flight with them just last week for next June - thought I would get in early to get a cheap deal!!
That's £200 down the pan! No hope of getting money back
Should have booked with a reliable airline like Ryan Air
1
In reply to Trangia:
Just seen this how does the credit card refund bit work?
> For the first time in my life I've been caught up with an airline going bust
> I was due to fly out to Spain next Saturday with Monarch for a week's hiking in the Sierras. Been phoning and on line since 7 am this morning and have managed to find 3 seats with EasyJet for Sunday, so will only miss a day, but it's costing us an extra £55 each one way, plus whatever the hold luggage costs . Fortunately my mate used his credit card when he booked with Monarch 3 months ago, so hopefully we should get a refund in due course.
Just seen this how does the credit card refund bit work?
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Is that an upside? I can't say I'm happy about anything that brings a smile to Michael O'Leary's face......
(He said not long ago that Monarch were about to go bust)
> Maybe other airlines have successfully hedged against rising fuel costs?
> Edited to add: As an upside this might help Ryanair fill their pilot vacancies...
Is that an upside? I can't say I'm happy about anything that brings a smile to Michael O'Leary's face......
(He said not long ago that Monarch were about to go bust)
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Since Greybull took over they changed their business model to reflect more that of EasyJey/Ryanair but they had higher overheads. The terrorism affect was more that the lack on interest in Egypt/Turkey etc has meant that Easyject et al moved their planes across to Mediterranean destinations, flooding the market with lower price tickets that they could afford, but Monarch couldn't.
Or something like that.....
> Is there any evidence of that? My understanding was that the impact of terrorism had lead to a greater demand for "safer" European destinations - isn't that Monarch's primary sector?
Since Greybull took over they changed their business model to reflect more that of EasyJey/Ryanair but they had higher overheads. The terrorism affect was more that the lack on interest in Egypt/Turkey etc has meant that Easyject et al moved their planes across to Mediterranean destinations, flooding the market with lower price tickets that they could afford, but Monarch couldn't.
Or something like that.....
In reply to iusedtoclimb:
You contact your credit card company, give them the full details and they will do it for you.
You contact your credit card company, give them the full details and they will do it for you.
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Egypt continues to be massively affected by the massive reduction in direct flights from a lot of major countries.
Egypt continues to be massively affected by the massive reduction in direct flights from a lot of major countries.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
They still had a slightly higher cost per available seat kilometre than the average low-costs and significantly higher than the "ultra" low cost and at that end of the business sales are won and lost over a difference of 5 pounds.
Yes, they had some bad luck with their destinations but 76% of their capacity in summer 2016 was on routes to Spain and Portugal.
They had previously tried to grow too fast and were forced to restructure, selling off planes, making redundant 29% of their staff and cutting back capacity. Load factor had taken a hit. It looks like they were trying to consolidate on the european short-haul leisure market which is a very tough market to compete in. You either have to be ryanair or offering package tours.
> Aside from the regal branding, they were pretty similar to the other low cost carriers. I think they had bad luck with the destinations.
They still had a slightly higher cost per available seat kilometre than the average low-costs and significantly higher than the "ultra" low cost and at that end of the business sales are won and lost over a difference of 5 pounds.
Yes, they had some bad luck with their destinations but 76% of their capacity in summer 2016 was on routes to Spain and Portugal.
They had previously tried to grow too fast and were forced to restructure, selling off planes, making redundant 29% of their staff and cutting back capacity. Load factor had taken a hit. It looks like they were trying to consolidate on the european short-haul leisure market which is a very tough market to compete in. You either have to be ryanair or offering package tours.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I was going to say you wouldn't have know as a passenger...... but maybe they were the flights that used the covered bridge to get one the plane.
> They still had a slightly higher cost per available seat kilometre than the average low-costs and significantly higher than the "ultra" low cost and at that end of the business sales are won and lost over a difference of 5 pounds.
I was going to say you wouldn't have know as a passenger...... but maybe they were the flights that used the covered bridge to get one the plane.
Post edited at 14:25
In reply to john arran:
I watched rolling BBC Breakfast News for an hour or so this morning and the saddest thing was I never once heard a word of sympathy for staff losing jobs. Just occasionally a number quoted between 2000 and 3000.
They had plenty of interviews with people who had possibly lost £200 on a flight or who had rocked up at Manchester only to go home again........but losing your livelihood, nada.
Sad.
My sympathies to anyone who has woken up without a job this morning.
I watched rolling BBC Breakfast News for an hour or so this morning and the saddest thing was I never once heard a word of sympathy for staff losing jobs. Just occasionally a number quoted between 2000 and 3000.
They had plenty of interviews with people who had possibly lost £200 on a flight or who had rocked up at Manchester only to go home again........but losing your livelihood, nada.
Sad.
My sympathies to anyone who has woken up without a job this morning.
Post edited at 14:21
12
1
In reply to Babika:
I agree, especially for ground staff, admin folk & cabin attendants. First Officers, Second officers & engineers are likely to be scooped up by other airlines.
Meanwhile, on the climbing front. their Spain destinations (e.g. Gibraltar) often proved a useful option to more mainstream access point.
I agree, especially for ground staff, admin folk & cabin attendants. First Officers, Second officers & engineers are likely to be scooped up by other airlines.
Meanwhile, on the climbing front. their Spain destinations (e.g. Gibraltar) often proved a useful option to more mainstream access point.
1
In reply to iusedtoclimb:
Martin Lewis from moneysavingexpert.com was on Radio 5 at lunchtime explaining about Section 75 (or similar), there will be stuff on his website detailing what you need to do.
Martin Lewis from moneysavingexpert.com was on Radio 5 at lunchtime explaining about Section 75 (or similar), there will be stuff on his website detailing what you need to do.
In reply to J1234:
From that same article. "Many of the big costs of running Monarch, such as fuel and handling charges, are denominated in dollars.
But the pound has fallen by about 10% against the dollar since the Brexit vote, meaning the airline is having to pay more to buy its fuel. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
W
> "However, Monarch chief executive Andrew Swaffield said the "root cause" was terrorism in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the collapse of the market in Turkey. "
From that same article. "Many of the big costs of running Monarch, such as fuel and handling charges, are denominated in dollars.
But the pound has fallen by about 10% against the dollar since the Brexit vote, meaning the airline is having to pay more to buy its fuel. "
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
W
2
In reply to john arran: they've been wobbly for ages, but the weak ess of the pound, along with market uncertainty of how their future might look has deterred investment and refinancing.
In reply to Bogwalloper:
Yes, the statements made by the CEO but others have already said that so why don't you respond to that with an "OK you were right".
Al
Yes, the statements made by the CEO but others have already said that so why don't you respond to that with an "OK you were right".
Al
In reply to wbo:
Do you think the Brexit-caused weakness of the pound has accelerated their demise? If not, please explain how being suddenly less competitive compared to airlines with a more non-UK customer base wouldn't make their profitability harder to maintain?
> they've been wobbly for ages, but the weak ess of the pound, along with market uncertainty of how their future might look has deterred investment and refinancing.
Do you think the Brexit-caused weakness of the pound has accelerated their demise? If not, please explain how being suddenly less competitive compared to airlines with a more non-UK customer base wouldn't make their profitability harder to maintain?
1
In reply to bonebag:
Do you think the Brexit-caused weakness of the pound has accelerated their demise? If not, please explain how being suddenly less competitive compared to airlines with a more non-UK customer base wouldn't make their profitability harder to maintain?
Do you think the Brexit-caused weakness of the pound has accelerated their demise? If not, please explain how being suddenly less competitive compared to airlines with a more non-UK customer base wouldn't make their profitability harder to maintain?
1
In reply to john arran:
Big Ger was right. You're that obsessed with demonising Brexit your posting the same nonsense twice!!!
Big Ger was right. You're that obsessed with demonising Brexit your posting the same nonsense twice!!!
2
4
In reply to GridNorth:
Just because they may have been other factors does not mean the weakness of the pound was not also a factor. This was caused by Brexit. It inevitably will have made life more difficult for any UK based business with predominantly Sterling income that has significant costs in stronger currencies. It really is completely baffling what is motivating so many on here to wilfully ignore this, or to pretend that it isn't so, without offering any reason for such a position.
Just because they may have been other factors does not mean the weakness of the pound was not also a factor. This was caused by Brexit. It inevitably will have made life more difficult for any UK based business with predominantly Sterling income that has significant costs in stronger currencies. It really is completely baffling what is motivating so many on here to wilfully ignore this, or to pretend that it isn't so, without offering any reason for such a position.
5
In reply to Gone for good:
I'm getting similarly baffling responses from several peoiple, so am asking them for some kind of justification for their baffling stance. That's not obsession; that's curiosity.
Edit: can YOU explain why people don't seem to be able to admit it was a factor, perhaps one among several?
I'm getting similarly baffling responses from several peoiple, so am asking them for some kind of justification for their baffling stance. That's not obsession; that's curiosity.
Edit: can YOU explain why people don't seem to be able to admit it was a factor, perhaps one among several?
Post edited at 19:54
In reply to john arran:
Stick with the day job. financial analysis may not be your boat
Stick with the day job. financial analysis may not be your boat
Post edited at 19:58
1
6
1
In reply to john arran:
Can you explain why you aren't able to accept several clearly explained good reasons as to why Brexit wasn't really a factor?
> I'm getting similarly baffling responses from several peoiple, so am asking them for some kind of justification for their baffling stance. That's not obsession; that's curiosity.
> Edit: can YOU explain why people don't seem to be able to admit it was a factor, perhaps one among several?
Can you explain why you aren't able to accept several clearly explained good reasons as to why Brexit wasn't really a factor?
3
In reply to Gone for good:
Point me to one. I've seen several arguments to say that other factors were important, but nothing to show how the weakness of the pound had no effect. My view is that those people are not being entirely honest with their appraisal of the situation due to tribal allegiance.
Prove me wrong.
Point me to one. I've seen several arguments to say that other factors were important, but nothing to show how the weakness of the pound had no effect. My view is that those people are not being entirely honest with their appraisal of the situation due to tribal allegiance.
Prove me wrong.
5
In reply to john arran:
Others have made it already. I've not seen the detailed breakdown of the numbers but Monarch was clearly suffering from a number of misteps and structural problems. It had abandoned its profitable long haul business, reduced its highly profitable and lower risk (but structurally declining) charter business and, very belatedly, gone head to head with existing much larger budget airlines which benefited from economies of scale and had taken advanatage of lower fuel costs to expand aggressively. Thus as Monarch tried to enter the market the existing players were able to reduce prices aggressively. Monarch was simply too small and probably too inefficient to compete with the no-frills majors.
The core problems were compounded by its relatively heavy exposure to the profitable middle Eastern markets (Egypt and Tusnisia) which collapsed.This forced it to switch capacity to the ultra competitive Western Med markets. Whilst passenger numbers rose 14% this year its revenues fell by £100mn.
It's only made a (small) profit twice in the past 8 years and in a year when both fuel prices and currency went sharply in its favour.
No doubt the fall in sterling was a factor, but it would actually be more true to say that the previous big falls in the Euro gave it a stay of execution which temporarily offset its intrinsic structural problems which were the underlying cause for its bankruptcy. Other airlines have coped perfectly well with the fall in sterling. To blame brexit for its bankruptcy is therefore extremely misleading.
> So still no reasoned argument?
Others have made it already. I've not seen the detailed breakdown of the numbers but Monarch was clearly suffering from a number of misteps and structural problems. It had abandoned its profitable long haul business, reduced its highly profitable and lower risk (but structurally declining) charter business and, very belatedly, gone head to head with existing much larger budget airlines which benefited from economies of scale and had taken advanatage of lower fuel costs to expand aggressively. Thus as Monarch tried to enter the market the existing players were able to reduce prices aggressively. Monarch was simply too small and probably too inefficient to compete with the no-frills majors.
The core problems were compounded by its relatively heavy exposure to the profitable middle Eastern markets (Egypt and Tusnisia) which collapsed.This forced it to switch capacity to the ultra competitive Western Med markets. Whilst passenger numbers rose 14% this year its revenues fell by £100mn.
It's only made a (small) profit twice in the past 8 years and in a year when both fuel prices and currency went sharply in its favour.
No doubt the fall in sterling was a factor, but it would actually be more true to say that the previous big falls in the Euro gave it a stay of execution which temporarily offset its intrinsic structural problems which were the underlying cause for its bankruptcy. Other airlines have coped perfectly well with the fall in sterling. To blame brexit for its bankruptcy is therefore extremely misleading.
Post edited at 20:23
2
1
In reply to john arran:
The value of sterling goes up and down and whilst Brexit caused a wobble the pound is 9% higher against the dollar than it was 12 months ago. As many people have pointed out it wasn't that long ago that $100 wouldnt cover the cost of a barrel of oil. Never mind that North Africa is out of bounds and Monarch simply didn't have the volume of business to be able to compete with its rivals.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59d20571e4b09538b50...
The value of sterling goes up and down and whilst Brexit caused a wobble the pound is 9% higher against the dollar than it was 12 months ago. As many people have pointed out it wasn't that long ago that $100 wouldnt cover the cost of a barrel of oil. Never mind that North Africa is out of bounds and Monarch simply didn't have the volume of business to be able to compete with its rivals.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59d20571e4b09538b50...
In reply to Postmanpat:
Thank you. That was the only thing I was claiming, and the one thing that so many apologists for Brexit on here seem to be so determined to deny.
> No doubt the fall in sterling was a factor
Thank you. That was the only thing I was claiming, and the one thing that so many apologists for Brexit on here seem to be so determined to deny.
5
In reply to Gone for good:
You're having a laugh now. You're seriously suggesting that the Brexit vote had no significant effect on the currency, and therefore the difficulty of trading for some companies who were particularly exposed to currency imbalance?
> Brexit caused a wobble
You're having a laugh now. You're seriously suggesting that the Brexit vote had no significant effect on the currency, and therefore the difficulty of trading for some companies who were particularly exposed to currency imbalance?
4
In reply to john arran:
I think it would be reasonable to say that your OP "going well this brexit thing, eh" implied that it was more than just a minor factor. You are being disingenuous.
> Thank you. That was the only thing I was claiming, and the one thing that so many apologists for Brexit on here seem to be so determined to deny.
I think it would be reasonable to say that your OP "going well this brexit thing, eh" implied that it was more than just a minor factor. You are being disingenuous.
Post edited at 20:29
2
2
In reply to Gone for good:
xe.com makes it 2.46%, and 12 months ago was already after the Brexit vote and most of the currency crash.
How about being a little more honest with your figures?
> the pound is 9% higher against the dollar than it was 12 months ago
xe.com makes it 2.46%, and 12 months ago was already after the Brexit vote and most of the currency crash.
How about being a little more honest with your figures?
3
In reply to john arran:
Your opening shot was" going well this Brexit thing, eh?" thereby attributing the failure of Monarch exclusively on Brexit.
Brexit had no direct impact on the downfall of Monarch and it's practically impossible to quantify the indirect impact. Bottom line is Monarch was a business waiting to fail and fail it did . Without Brexit it would still have failed.
Your opening shot was" going well this Brexit thing, eh?" thereby attributing the failure of Monarch exclusively on Brexit.
Brexit had no direct impact on the downfall of Monarch and it's practically impossible to quantify the indirect impact. Bottom line is Monarch was a business waiting to fail and fail it did . Without Brexit it would still have failed.
2
2
In reply to john arran:
12 months ago the pound was worth 1.22 us dollars. Today it was worth 1.32 us dollars. That's 9% increase in value by my reckoning.
12 months ago the pound was worth 1.22 us dollars. Today it was worth 1.32 us dollars. That's 9% increase in value by my reckoning.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
At last, a reasoned point. Thank you.
However, it doesn't alter the fact that Monarch would still be trading - and employing people - today were it not for the Brexit vote. Whether that trading lasted days longer, months longer, years longer, or allowed them to stay in business much longer is impossible to say, certainly not by me.
My one and only point was that Brexit had a hand in its untimely demise, and at last you at least appear to be in agreement.
Edit Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Please argue amongst yourselves and prove yourselves right by mutual misinformation and missing the point. Good night
At last, a reasoned point. Thank you.
However, it doesn't alter the fact that Monarch would still be trading - and employing people - today were it not for the Brexit vote. Whether that trading lasted days longer, months longer, years longer, or allowed them to stay in business much longer is impossible to say, certainly not by me.
My one and only point was that Brexit had a hand in its untimely demise, and at last you at least appear to be in agreement.
Edit Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Please argue amongst yourselves and prove yourselves right by mutual misinformation and missing the point. Good night
Post edited at 20:43
1
1
In reply to john arran:
Hmm. Possibly.
Short term it is very difficult to tell. As others have pointed, sterling has actually risen against the $ recently which should be a positive. The time of maximum forex raelated pain was in probably in 2016. But without knowing how they hedged their currency exposure (which may have negated the recent strength of sterling) we can't know.
> At last, a reasoned point. Thank you.
> However, it doesn't alter the fact that Monarch would still be trading - and employing people - today were it not for the Brexit vote.
>Hmm. Possibly.
Short term it is very difficult to tell. As others have pointed, sterling has actually risen against the $ recently which should be a positive. The time of maximum forex raelated pain was in probably in 2016. But without knowing how they hedged their currency exposure (which may have negated the recent strength of sterling) we can't know.
Post edited at 20:42
1
In reply to john arran:
With petrol today half its recent price I'd not even rank fuel costs in the top 5 reasons. How about:
Collapse of core market
Revenues fall by £100m
Squeezed out by more efficient rivals
Structurally weak - Saved from bankruptcy twice!!
Disastrous strategic errors
You've been digging a hole for yourself all day with this and now we can't even see the top of your head.
> Thank you. That was the only thing I was claiming, and the one thing that so many apologists for Brexit on here seem to be so determined to deny.
With petrol today half its recent price I'd not even rank fuel costs in the top 5 reasons. How about:
Collapse of core market
Revenues fall by £100m
Squeezed out by more efficient rivals
Structurally weak - Saved from bankruptcy twice!!
Disastrous strategic errors
You've been digging a hole for yourself all day with this and now we can't even see the top of your head.
3
1
In reply to Gone for good:
http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=GBP&To=U... shows 1.328 on 2/10/17
http://www.xe.com/currencytables/?from=GBP&date=2016-10-02 shows 1.296 on 2/10/16
I don't know where you're getting your misinformation from.
http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=GBP&To=U... shows 1.328 on 2/10/17
http://www.xe.com/currencytables/?from=GBP&date=2016-10-02 shows 1.296 on 2/10/16
I don't know where you're getting your misinformation from.
2
In reply to BnB:
For Christ's sake, nobody even mentioned fuel prices. For the benefit of the hard of thinking, the relevant metric is costs in non-Sterling currencies compared to income in Sterling.
I'm beginning to think I'm trying to debate with Donald Trump.
For Christ's sake, nobody even mentioned fuel prices. For the benefit of the hard of thinking, the relevant metric is costs in non-Sterling currencies compared to income in Sterling.
I'm beginning to think I'm trying to debate with Donald Trump.
1
1
In reply to john arran:
> For Christ's sake, nobody even mentioned fuel prices. For the benefit of the hard of thinking, the relevant metric is costs in non-Sterling currencies compared to income in Sterling.
>
And the biggest non-sterling cost is?
2
1
In reply to john arran:
You're right. I was looking at the 11th October 2016 when the dollar was worth 1.225 against sterling. 51 weeks ago rather than 52 but if it makes you feel better.......
You're right. I was looking at the 11th October 2016 when the dollar was worth 1.225 against sterling. 51 weeks ago rather than 52 but if it makes you feel better.......
Post edited at 20:56
1
1
In reply to john arran:
Lets's wind this back. I've lost track of what point you were making.
> You're more intelligent than that, Pat.
Lets's wind this back. I've lost track of what point you were making.
1
2
In reply to john arran:
I think you'll find that, with fuel the most significant non GBP cost by far, that "fuel prices" is a serviceable alias for "relative currency movements". The BBC certainly seems to think so.
> For Christ's sake, nobody even mentioned fuel prices. For the benefit of the hard of thinking, the relevant metric is costs in non-Sterling currencies compared to income in Sterling.
> I'm beginning to think I'm trying to debate with Donald Trump.
I think you'll find that, with fuel the most significant non GBP cost by far, that "fuel prices" is a serviceable alias for "relative currency movements". The BBC certainly seems to think so.
Post edited at 21:15
1
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Every news report I've watched and listened to today said Brexit (lower sterling value) was a factor, with various analysts explaining why.
We just had our annual family holiday at half term cancelled because our flights were with Monarch. We were meant to be going with my sister and her family, they were lucky because they were flying from a different airport so the company hadn't booked them with Monarch, unlike ours unfortunately. Kids pretty upset that they aren't going on holiday with their cousins anymore.
If anyone has ideas of somewhere warm and sunny and we can get to last minute for similar money I'd love to hear!
> Can you explain why you aren't able to accept several clearly explained good reasons as to why Brexit wasn't really a factor?
Every news report I've watched and listened to today said Brexit (lower sterling value) was a factor, with various analysts explaining why.
We just had our annual family holiday at half term cancelled because our flights were with Monarch. We were meant to be going with my sister and her family, they were lucky because they were flying from a different airport so the company hadn't booked them with Monarch, unlike ours unfortunately. Kids pretty upset that they aren't going on holiday with their cousins anymore.
If anyone has ideas of somewhere warm and sunny and we can get to last minute for similar money I'd love to hear!
2
In reply to BnB:
Yeah, looking around on lastminut.com and the like but a bit disheartened. It does look like we'll get everything back, except I think parking at Manchester airport which for once being quite organised we have already paid for! We had even got the newest member of the family his first (and very smart) passport - getting a wriggly 3 week old as he was back then to pose for a passport photo is no easy task!
Yeah, looking around on lastminut.com and the like but a bit disheartened. It does look like we'll get everything back, except I think parking at Manchester airport which for once being quite organised we have already paid for! We had even got the newest member of the family his first (and very smart) passport - getting a wriggly 3 week old as he was back then to pose for a passport photo is no easy task!
3
In reply to BnB:
It is of course.. The other major non dollar costs are presumably aircraft leasing and landing fees. Using BA as a proxy
( albeit a very different company), fuel costs are 15-20x leasing costs and 3x landing fees (at least half of which are presumably in sterling anyway).
> I think you'll find that, with fuel the most significant non GBP cost by far, that "fuel prices" is a serviceable alias for "relative currency movements". The BBC certainly seems to think so. But I've only been running international companies since 1995 so I'd take my observations with a pinch of salt.
It is of course.. The other major non dollar costs are presumably aircraft leasing and landing fees. Using BA as a proxy
( albeit a very different company), fuel costs are 15-20x leasing costs and 3x landing fees (at least half of which are presumably in sterling anyway).
In reply to john arran:
hahahahahahahahaha. thats typical of you. blame everything on brexit. what a crock of shit
hahahahahahahahaha. thats typical of you. blame everything on brexit. what a crock of shit
2
3
In reply to neilh:
This year they had to have a last-minute £165m cash injection in order to keep flying, last year they made a loss of £291m, in 2014 they had to be rescued from "near bankruptcy".
> Last year they make a profit , this year a 1/4 billion loss.
This year they had to have a last-minute £165m cash injection in order to keep flying, last year they made a loss of £291m, in 2014 they had to be rescued from "near bankruptcy".
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
"Terror attacks in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia have seen travel firms and airlines concentrating their efforts on Monarch's traditional stamping grounds - Spain and Portugal - upping the pressure on the airline still further. "Airlines have seen terror attacks dry up demand for markets like Egypt and Turkey," says Mr Strickland. He says this has meant that Monarch's has had to reduce prices for travel to its key markets. "That's meant with overcapacity prices have come down, which has only worsened the situation in terms of Monarch's own revenues," says Mr Strickland.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
> Is there any evidence of that? My understanding was that the impact of terrorism had lead to a greater demand for "safer" European destinations - isn't that Monarch's primary sector?
"Terror attacks in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia have seen travel firms and airlines concentrating their efforts on Monarch's traditional stamping grounds - Spain and Portugal - upping the pressure on the airline still further. "Airlines have seen terror attacks dry up demand for markets like Egypt and Turkey," says Mr Strickland. He says this has meant that Monarch's has had to reduce prices for travel to its key markets. "That's meant with overcapacity prices have come down, which has only worsened the situation in terms of Monarch's own revenues," says Mr Strickland.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
In reply to krikoman:
On all airways yes, but Morach has limped from failure to problem, to bailout.
> Except fuel costs are in dollars and the fall in the value of the pound post Brexit, as almost certainly had a massive influence.
On all airways yes, but Morach has limped from failure to problem, to bailout.
1
In reply to john arran:
It seems to me that senior people at Monarch must have been talking to the CAA for some tome before the decision to enter administration. I say this because of how smoothly and promptly information has apparently been transferred to allow the CAA to immediately make alternative arrangements.
Ironic that passengers of this bust airline are going to have less hassle making their return journeys than thousands of customers of the still-trading Ryan Air...
It seems to me that senior people at Monarch must have been talking to the CAA for some tome before the decision to enter administration. I say this because of how smoothly and promptly information has apparently been transferred to allow the CAA to immediately make alternative arrangements.
Ironic that passengers of this bust airline are going to have less hassle making their return journeys than thousands of customers of the still-trading Ryan Air...
2
In reply to TobyA:
> Yeah, looking around on lastminut.com and the like but a bit disheartened.
Where were you hoping to get to and on what dates? Is it two adults, a child and a baby?Post edited at 23:29
In reply to john arran:
I tried to book 30 seats on a Monarch flight early this year with the flight due to depart in December. After spending in excess of 5 hours spread over the course of a few a days on the phone to customer services, chasing non existent call backs, I decide to drop the endeavour in favour of a rival airline.
Can't help but feel that the customer services failure which saved me untold amounts of hassle somehow could have contributed to the Monarch's downfall.
I tried to book 30 seats on a Monarch flight early this year with the flight due to depart in December. After spending in excess of 5 hours spread over the course of a few a days on the phone to customer services, chasing non existent call backs, I decide to drop the endeavour in favour of a rival airline.
Can't help but feel that the customer services failure which saved me untold amounts of hassle somehow could have contributed to the Monarch's downfall.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Two adults, two kids and the baby, it's five of us now! Kids were looking forward to warmish sea, we were going to Turkey, so somewhere in the Med I guess.
Two adults, two kids and the baby, it's five of us now! Kids were looking forward to warmish sea, we were going to Turkey, so somewhere in the Med I guess.
In reply to TobyA:
Have you looked at Pegasus Airline or Turkish Airline? To try to get to Turkey and join family.
Or go to Tenerife from East Midlands airport.
No idea on pricing, though
Have you looked at Pegasus Airline or Turkish Airline? To try to get to Turkey and join family.
Or go to Tenerife from East Midlands airport.
No idea on pricing, though
Post edited at 00:27
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...