3 ms·

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-t

• 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...