5 ms·

> Now their collapse costs a fortune to the UK taxpayers. Does it? Grant shapes (secretary of state for transport) said most of the money to sort this mess has

> Now their collapse costs a fortune to the UK taxpayers. Does it? Grant shapes (secretary of state for transport) said most of the money to sort this mess has come from the ATOL fund rather than tax. And if that doesn’t cover it then the money from asset stripping TC will be used to pay back customers. So I’d be interested to know you've got that from.

buboard 7y ago
That fund is apparently not enough to cover the associated costs https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-faces-huge-bill-as-thomas-cook-collapse-expected-to-cost-1bn-vrlcqkkzb https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-faces-huge-bill-...
- gambiting 7y ago
  "This is in addition to an expected £100 million bill to return Thomas Cook passengers to Britain" - it might be true, but I just don't understand where they are getting that number from. When Monarch Airlines collapsed, repatriating 110k passangers cost £16.3M - but somehow repatriating 150k tourists is going to cost over £100M here??
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Reasons why this might be a lot more expensive: 1. Monarch just flew EU. TC also does Cuba; Mauritius; Barbados, USA, India 2. Because of the 737MAX mess, there’s fewer available seats on other airlines and there just aren’t idle charter planes available.
    - gambiting 7y ago
      In response to #2: Thomas Cook had its own airline with its own fleet of aircraft. Surely some of the fund could be used to keep that fleet and its pilots employed and operational to bring the people back? No need to charter anything then.
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        That’s incorrect. All except 5 were leased from 38 different companies: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomas-cook-grp-investment-fleet-fact/factbox-fleet-of-over-100-jets-operated-by-troubled-thomas-cook-idUSKBN1W70SP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomas-cook-grp-investmen...
OJFord 7y ago
> And if that doesn’t cover it then the money from asset stripping TC will be used to pay back customers. Not likely, there'll be a line of higher priority creditors before them. See for example: https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/company-services/insolvency-solicitors/company-administration/further-information-compadmin/what-are-the-rankings-of-creditors-in-insolvency.html https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/com... (Customers being unsecured creditors.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

buboard 7y ago

That fund is apparently not enough to cover the associated costs https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-faces-huge-bill-as-thomas-cook-collapse-expected-to-cost-1bn-vrlcqkkzb https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-faces-huge-bill-...

gambiting 7y ago
"This is in addition to an expected £100 million bill to return Thomas Cook passengers to Britain" - it might be true, but I just don't understand where they are getting that number from. When Monarch Airlines collapsed, repatriating 110k passangers cost £16.3M - but somehow repatriating 150k tourists is going to cost over £100M here??
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Reasons why this might be a lot more expensive: 1. Monarch just flew EU. TC also does Cuba; Mauritius; Barbados, USA, India 2. Because of the 737MAX mess, there’s fewer available seats on other airlines and there just aren’t idle charter planes available.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    In response to #2: Thomas Cook had its own airline with its own fleet of aircraft. Surely some of the fund could be used to keep that fleet and its pilots employed and operational to bring the people back? No need to charter anything then.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      That’s incorrect. All except 5 were leased from 38 different companies: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomas-cook-grp-investment-fleet-fact/factbox-fleet-of-over-100-jets-operated-by-troubled-thomas-cook-idUSKBN1W70SP https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomas-cook-grp-investmen...

OJFord 7y ago

> And if that doesn’t cover it then the money from asset stripping TC will be used to pay back customers. Not likely, there'll be a line of higher priority creditors before them. See for example: https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/company-services/insolvency-solicitors/company-administration/further-information-compadmin/what-are-the-rankings-of-creditors-in-insolvency.html https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_services/com... (Customers being unsecured creditors.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]