We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Nick Cooper • 3 months ago

Steve, I think for now, Thomas Cook and Monarch are different
situations. Monarch was not profitable and was likely heading for large losses with
a hugely difficult turnaround at existing sterling/euro/dollar exchange rates. Even
without any debt, in my opinion, Monarch would struggle to make a profit in the
years to come.
Thomas Cook, on the negative side, over expanded, using cash
flow to expand and buy business and borrowed heavily. They never strengthened
their balance sheet to a far higher level (the CAA allowed them to keep their ATOL
with a balance sheet hugely supported with “intangible assets”, looking at
their cash flow at the time and not applying other rules they used to enforce
with smaller companies by demanding their balance sheets have around 4% to 5%
of licencable turnover available as “net ready realisable assets” – but that’s another
story).
The main difference between Monarch and Thomas Cook, is that
Thomas Cook, with a bit of re-organising and without their debt “look as if they
could make a decent profit”. That said, left as they are, Thomas Cook do have
some serious debts to pay back, so something will have to change.

steve kane • 3 months ago

Monarch number 2

steve kane • 3 months ago

Hi Nick As i Said Monarch Number 2 just you wait and see not now but by this time next year??

Chris P • 3 months ago

Based on what information ? They are very different beasts and Monarch was in decline over many years .

Julie drewls • 3 months ago

Steve kane has not posted for over 6 days.

Hope he is ok ?
Julie drewls • 3 months ago

I'll do you a deal Steve.

If your right, I proudly defend every post you make from that point on.

If your wrong, you will STOP posting to TW.

Deal ?