We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Steve, I think for now, Thomas Cook and Monarch are differentsituations. Monarch was not profitable and was likely heading for large losses witha hugely difficult turnaround at existing sterling/euro/dollar exchange rates. Evenwithout any debt, in my opinion, Monarch would struggle to make a profit in theyears to come.Thomas Cook, on the negative side, over expanded, using cashflow to expand and buy business and borrowed heavily. They never strengthenedtheir balance sheet to a far higher level (the CAA allowed them to keep their ATOLwith a balance sheet hugely supported with “intangible assets”, looking attheir cash flow at the time and not applying other rules they used to enforcewith smaller companies by demanding their balance sheets have around 4% to 5%of licencable turnover available as “net ready realisable assets” – but that’s anotherstory). The main difference between Monarch and Thomas Cook, is thatThomas Cook, with a bit of re-organising and without their debt “look as if theycould make a decent profit”. That said, left as they are, Thomas Cook do havesome serious debts to pay back, so something will have to change.
Monarch number 2
Hi Nick As i Said Monarch Number 2 just you wait and see not now but by this time next year??
Based on what information ? They are very different beasts and Monarch was in decline over many years .
Steve kane has not posted for over 6 days.
Hope he is ok ?
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.