Monarch Airlines

[beensaidbefore]

Forgive me if I have picked this up wrong. The taxpayer is going to be faced with a £60M bill to bring passengers home. Surely they should be obliged to have some sort of insurance for this kind of situation.

Does anyone know in situations like this where would the govt stand in the list of creditors? Will the taxpayer be reimbursed, or is this more money down the drain to bail out a private company?

[easty]

It's probably money down the drain, but it's to bail out GB citizens who have had thier flights cancelled, not to bail out Monarch. Monarch aren't looking to be bailed out, they're done. I think.

[beensaidbefore]

It's probably money down the drain, but it's to bail out GB citizens who have had thier flights cancelled, not to bail out Monarch. Monarch aren't looking to be bailed out, they're done. I think.

I think big companies like that should have insurance for just such an reason. I suppose it's only a quid each, but Christ sake, we could be doing without it.

[Billy Whizz]

Forgive me if I have picked this up wrong. The taxpayer is going to be faced with a £60M bill to bring passengers home. Surely they should be obliged to have some sort of insurance for this kind of situation.

Does anyone know in situations like this where would the govt stand in the list of creditors? Will the taxpayer be reimbursed, or is this more money down the drain to bail out a private company?

Presume there will something for the administrator to sell, routes, aircraft, forward bookings etc. Not sure what that will add up too though

[CropleyWasGod]

I think big companies like that should have insurance for just such an reason. I suppose it's only a quid each, but Christ sake, we could be doing without it.The company is in administration, so I'd doubt that any insurance company would pay out on such a policy.

To answer your earlier question, the Government will be a creditor in the administration, and will rank with everyone else. Depending on how that progresses (eg if the company is sold on, in part or in full), it may recoup some of it. Also, if the parts that are sold on make money, there will be extra tax revenue...which we weren't getting from Monarch.

Already Virgin are fast-tracking applications from former Monarch flight officers. That will mean additional PAYE & NI for the Government.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Bishop Hibee]

Surely this is something the government should look at for the future. As a taxpayer, I'm sick of cleaning up after private company failures. Airlines should be forced to have insurance which can pay for stranded passengers' flights home if they go bust. If it puts up the price of travel so be it.

[johnbc70]

Surely this is something the government should look at for the future. As a taxpayer, I'm sick of cleaning up after private company failures. Airlines should be forced to have insurance which can pay for stranded passengers' flights home if they go bust. If it puts up the price of travel so be it.


The taxpayer has paid considerably more over the years for public sector failures, I am sick and tired of paying for that!

[Jack]

Funding and administration

ATOL is run by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). It is funded by contributions from the travel companies, who must pay £2.50 into the scheme for each person they book on a holiday.

This money creates a fund that is used by the CAA to ensure consumers either complete their holiday or – if they cannot get away – receive a full refund.

[CropleyWasGod]

Funding and administration

ATOL is run by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). It is funded by contributions from the travel companies, who must pay £2.50 into the scheme for each person they book on a holiday.

This money creates a fund that is used by the CAA to ensure consumers either complete their holiday or – if they cannot get away – receive a full refund.ATOL only applies to holidays, and not to flights only.

It remains to be seen whether ATOL will apply in this case, anyway, as Monarch's licence was due to expire the day it went into administration.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[beensaidbefore]

Cheers guys, sounds like its not very straight forward. Let's hope the taxpayer gets something back.

[JeMeSouviens]

ATOL only applies to holidays, and not to flights only.

It remains to be seen whether ATOL will apply in this case, anyway, as Monarch's licence was due to expire the day it went into administration.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Yes, a relic from a time when almost everyone booked package holidays.

I believe the government/CAA are hoping to recoup flight-only passengers' costs directly from their credit card providers (where credit cards were used).

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes, a relic from a time when almost everyone booked package holidays.

I believe the government/CAA are hoping to recoup flight-only passengers' costs directly from their credit card providers (where credit cards were used).They might also have a case for recouping the flight costs from the passengers themselves, who would then reclaim through their own insurance company.

And as for those who didn't take out insurance ( for a Monarch flight fgs).... they'll be off to a re-education camp pronto. [emoji48]

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

The company is in administration, so I'd doubt that any insurance company would pay out on such a policy.

To answer your earlier question, the Government will be a creditor in the administration, and will rank with everyone else. Depending on how that progresses (eg if the company is sold on, in part or in full), it may recoup some of it. Also, if the parts that are sold on make money, there will be extra tax revenue...which we weren't getting from Monarch.

Already Virgin are fast-tracking applications from former Monarch flight officers. That will mean additional PAYE & NI for the Government.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Only extra PAYE and NI if Virgin pay them more than Monarch I would have thought.

[McD]

Only extra PAYE and NI if Virgin pay them more than Monarch I would have thought.


Not really, at the moment they’re unemployed so aren’t contributing any PAYE or NI

[CropleyWasGod]

Only extra PAYE and NI if Virgin pay them more than Monarch I would have thought.They'll be getting nothing from Monarch in the future, and it wouldn't surprise me if they have had nothing from them for a while.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

The taxpayer has paid considerably more over the years for public sector failures, I am sick and tired of paying for that!

Eh, I doubt that mate. The banking crisis alone cost the UK taxpayer something like 850 billion quid, so if you chuck in various other private industry collapses over the years like this one where the taxpayer has had to step in I doubt the public sector would be ahead in the who has cost us more stakes.

If you like you can also chuck in the fact that in modern times the taxpayer has also stepped in to partially cover the costs of unpaid redundancy payments where a private companies assets cant cover them when its gone to the wall.

The government also provides grants to help small businesses and has been known to pump millions into incentives for large corporations to set up in the UK ..... all of which comes out of the taxpayers pocket.

Now I appreciate that part of this is to attract investment, create jobs and hopefully end up with a net gain to the exchequer in the long term. But it doesn't always work that way and over the years we have lost billions through companies who have been granted millions folding spectacularly ... Delorean in N Ireland being a prime example. Not to mention the withdrawal of Motorola from Bathgate which allegedly cost the taxpayer over 30 million quid in grants which were never recovered .... I'm sure a half hour google search would show these examples are just the tip of a fairly sizeable iceberg.

My point being, lets not pretend that private industry good, public ownership bad is as cut and dried an issue as the Tories and CBI would have us believe when it comes to the public purse.

[RyeSloan]

Eh, I doubt that mate. The banking crisis alone cost the UK taxpayer something like 850 billion quid, so if you chuck in various other private industry collapses over the years like this one where the taxpayer has had to step in I doubt the public sector would be ahead in the who has cost us more stakes.

If you like you can also chuck in the fact that in modern times the taxpayer has also stepped in to partially cover the costs of unpaid redundancy payments where a private companies assets cant cover them when its gone to the wall.

The government also provides grants to help small businesses and has been known to pump millions into incentives for large corporations to set up in the UK ..... all of which comes out of the taxpayers pocket.

Now I appreciate that part of this is to attract investment, create jobs and hopefully end up with a net gain to the exchequer in the long term. But it doesn't always work that way and over the years we have lost billions through companies who have been granted millions folding spectacularly ... Delorean in N Ireland being a prime example. Not to mention the withdrawal of Motorola from Bathgate which allegedly cost the taxpayer over 30 million quid in grants which were never recovered .... I'm sure a half hour google search would show these examples are just the tip of a fairly sizeable iceberg.

My point being, lets not pretend that private industry good, public ownership bad is as cut and dried an issue as the Tories and CBI would have us believe when it comes to the public purse.

Direct support to the banks cost nothing like £850bn.

But in general you make a good point but one I would interpret as governments are lousy at industrial strategies.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if all the subsides, grants, exemptions etc were binned. I'm minded to think that the government would save a fortune, increase its tax revenue and, after a period of possibly painful adjustment, the economy would move along quite nicely. Of course centrally run, politically dominated nationalised 'businesses' don't really fit into that vision either.

Thus the government may actually be able to spend its money on on the welfare of its populace rather than facilitating business to not pay rates or cut their tax bill because they lobbied for an exemption or indeed chucking £30m at Motorola.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Direct support to the banks cost nothing like £850bn.

But in general you make a good point but one I would interpret as governments are lousy at industrial strategies.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if all the subsides, grants, exemptions etc were binned. I'm minded to think that the government would save a fortune, increase its tax revenue and, after a period of possibly painful adjustment, the economy would move along quite nicely. Of course centrally run, politically dominated nationalised 'businesses' don't really fit into that vision either.

Thus the government may actually be able to spend its money on on the welfare of its populace rather than facilitating business to not pay rates or cut their tax bill because they lobbied for an exemption or indeed chucking £30m at Motorola.

Perhaps not, but according to a report in the Independent in 2009 when indirect costs to the public purse as a result of the crisis, such as future proofing were included that was the figure being quoted by the National Audit Office. which is parliaments own accounting body. .... That wasn't an estimate either, according to them it was the actual figure to date, with the eventual cost being projected as much higher ... all of it public money.

As for the rest .... I get what you are saying, being no expert I'm not sure if that strategy would work in the end or not. But one thing I wouldn't want to see as a result would be banks or multi national corporations for that matter allowed free rein to do what they wanted, unfettered from what they undoubtedly regard as government interference.
It seems to me that the rampant greed of the banks was what caused the whole mess in the first place, greed that was allowed to go unchecked by governments until the **** hit the fan and the whole house of cards came tumbling down .... if the politicians had been a little less besotted with congratulating themselves over how much money was being made and a little more concerned about how it was being made perhaps the whole mess could have been avoided in the first place.

That was the biggest joke of the lot ......... The bankers were vilified, the public were made to pay for it and the politicians seemingly got away scot free, even though they were the one group of people on the planet who should have seen it coming and done something to stop it. The cherry on the cake was the US electing a man who is the poster boy for rampant greed and capitalism as the solution to the problem folk exactly like him were responsible for .... you couldn't make it up.

[RyeSloan]

Perhaps not, but according to a report in the Independent in 2009 when indirect costs to the public purse as a result of the crisis, such as future proofing were included that was the figure being quoted by the National Audit Office. which is parliaments own accounting body. .... That wasn't an estimate either, according to them it was the actual figure to date, with the eventual cost being projected as much higher ... all of it public money.

As for the rest .... I get what you are saying, being no expert I'm not sure if that strategy would work in the end or not. But one thing I wouldn't want to see as a result would be banks or multi national corporations for that matter allowed free rein to do what they wanted, unfettered from what they undoubtedly regard as government interference.
It seems to me that the rampant greed of the banks was what caused the whole mess in the first place, greed that was allowed to go unchecked by governments until the **** hit the fan and the whole house of cards came tumbling down .... if the politicians had been a little less besotted with congratulating themselves over how much money was being made and a little more concerned about how it was being made perhaps the whole mess could have been avoided in the first place.

That was the biggest joke of the lot ......... The bankers were vilified, the public were made to pay for it and the politicians seemingly got away scot free, even though they were the one group of people on the planet who should have seen it coming and done something to stop it. The cherry on the cake was the US electing a man who is the poster boy for rampant greed and capitalism as the solution to the problem folk exactly like him were responsible for .... you couldn't make it up.

A rather reasonable synopsis I would suggest.

It would appear we are all rather doomed [emoji12]

[johnbc70]

Eh, I doubt that mate. The banking crisis alone cost the UK taxpayer something like 850 billion quid, so if you chuck in various other private industry collapses over the years like this one where the taxpayer has had to step in I doubt the public sector would be ahead in the who has cost us more stakes.

If you like you can also chuck in the fact that in modern times the taxpayer has also stepped in to partially cover the costs of unpaid redundancy payments where a private companies assets cant cover them when its gone to the wall.

The government also provides grants to help small businesses and has been known to pump millions into incentives for large corporations to set up in the UK ..... all of which comes out of the taxpayers pocket.

Now I appreciate that part of this is to attract investment, create jobs and hopefully end up with a net gain to the exchequer in the long term. But it doesn't always work that way and over the years we have lost billions through companies who have been granted millions folding spectacularly ... Delorean in N Ireland being a prime example. Not to mention the withdrawal of Motorola from Bathgate which allegedly cost the taxpayer over 30 million quid in grants which were never recovered .... I'm sure a half hour google search would show these examples are just the tip of a fairly sizeable iceberg.

My point being, lets not pretend that private industry good, public ownership bad is as cut and dried an issue as the Tories and CBI would have us believe when it comes to the public purse.

I was referring to the £60M quoted so in that context then there has been significantly higher amounts of taxpayers money been wasted over the years.