Thomas Cook
#1
9000 jobs going. A massive shame.
 Apparently it will cost approx £600 million to repatriate everyone.  Why are the govt. prepared to fork out for that, but not fork out £200 million as a guarantee to keep the company afloat while they try and stabilise it? That's £400 million!
Some will say "it will be a waste of money as they'll likely still go bust".  It would be a waste of 1/3 of the sum we are now wasting, better still, there might have been a way to turn the company around.  Short-termism has been what has dogged industry for decades - the bottom line is king.
Or am I missing something?
Reply
#2
By spending less money through bailing out, all those jobs would be saved too. It doesn't make sense.
Reply
#3
More pre election Tory bashing? How transparent.
Reply
#4
(23-09-2019, 09:29 AM)Yuri Gagarin Wrote: By spending less money through bailing out, all those jobs would be saved too. It doesn't make sense.
You would think so wouldn't you.  Maybe they have looked at the books and decided that it is beyond saving.  I would imagine that fewer people are travelling with the exchange rate being so shit and lots of uncertainty around.  Are TUI related to Thomas Cook?
Reply
#5
(23-09-2019, 09:36 AM)elgin eagle Wrote: You would think so wouldn't you.  Maybe they have looked at the books and decided that it is beyond saving.  I would imagine that fewer people are travelling with the exchange rate being so shit and lots of uncertainty around.  Are TUI related to Thomas Cook?
But you still have to fly those people home as a matter of urgency.
Reply
#6
It's good that people won't lose money because of the EU directive that lead to ATOL.
Reply
#7
(23-09-2019, 09:36 AM)elgin eagle Wrote: You would think so wouldn't you.  Maybe they have looked at the books and decided that it is beyond saving.  I would imagine that fewer people are travelling with the exchange rate being so shit and lots of uncertainty around.  Are TUI related to Thomas Cook?
Can't remember. Thought they were Thompson
Reply
#8
(23-09-2019, 09:41 AM)Talons Wrote: But you still have to fly those people home as a matter of urgency.
You do. I think ATOL should cover flights as well as just the accommodation side of things though.

Hard to know which part if any of the business is/was savable, I thought the flights bit was doing ok and it was the hotels part that was struggling.
Reply
#9
(23-09-2019, 09:51 AM)Yuri Gagarin Wrote: Can't remember. Thought they were Thompson
Ah yeah, TUI are Thompson.  Cheers.
Reply
#10
(23-09-2019, 10:09 AM)elgin eagle Wrote: You do. I think ATOL should cover flights as well as just the accommodation side of things though.

Hard to know which part if any of the business is/was savable, I thought the flights bit was doing ok and it was the hotels part that was struggling.
Presumably. It would not be an instant  payout though would it?
I think it is difficult for a government to start bailing out private companies who do not manufacture anything.  Where would it end?

TC are the victims of a more competitive market.
Reply
#11
(23-09-2019, 10:20 AM)Talons Wrote: Presumably. It would not be an instant  payout though would it?
I think it is difficult for a government to start bailing out private companies who do not manufacture anything.  Where would it end?

TC are the victims of a more competitive market.
There must a way though.  If they can protect the hotel side they must be able to protect the flights side as well.  Even by some small levy on every flight that they put into a bailout pot or something.

Agree that it must be a very competitive market though.  I guess people were relying on the established name and longevity, but eventually decided that cheaper options were better.  Seems quite similar to other famous high street names that have gone under recently.
Reply
#12
Thomas Cook are in the shit by their own means. An inability to adapt their model, atop very bad decisions at board level.
Anyone forgot that they murdered those two kids and then tried to keep the compensation money? That's the level of ineptitude and thinking you're dealing with at the top of the chain there.
I think their biggest problem was that they had high lease costs on high Street stores without owning the buildings as assets. 
No investor would throw 200 million into a black hole, so why should the government? This'll be brexit's fault, I'm just waiting on the headline now...
Reply
#13
(23-09-2019, 10:47 AM)elgin eagle Wrote: There must a way though.  If they can protect the hotel side they must be able to protect the flights side as well.  Even by some small levy on every flight that they put into a bailout pot or something.

Agree that it must be a very competitive market though.  I guess people were relying on the established name and longevity, but eventually decided that cheaper options were better.  Seems quite similar to other famous high street names that have gone under recently.
They can protect jobs and get everyone home by spending one third of the amount to bail the company out that it will cost to get everyone home.Seems the logical thing to do, even if only temporary. But not being a bank doesn't go in their favour.
Of course brexit will take some of the blame, but how much of the failure is down to financial mismanagement? I don't know.
Still Johnson is pleased that the sad affair is deflection away from his misuse of public funds whilst Mayor and having a sad affair.
Edit: just saw Chris's post above, seems we agree on the way the company was run.
Reply
#14
(23-09-2019, 11:10 AM)Yuri Gagarin Wrote: They can protect jobs and get everyone home by spending one third of the amount to bail the company out that it will cost to get everyone home.Seems the logical thing to do, even if only temporary. But not being a bank doesn't go in their favour.
Of course brexit will take some of the blame, but how much of the failure is down to financial mismanagement? I don't know.
Still Johnson is pleased that the sad affair is deflection away from his misuse of public funds whilst Mayor and having a sad affair.
Edit: just saw Chris's post above, seems we agree on the way the company was run.
Pre election smear campaign. TICK.
Reply
#15
From the government's point of view they've saved themselves 200million, the thought process being that paying to repatriate, although expensive, is inevitable. A 200 million bail out is just an expensive delay.
Reply
#16
this company has been round for 176 years and I do think in the end was seriously mis-managed

The govt could have bailed them out. Irony is their bankers are RBS who were bailed out by the govt (albeit not this one)
Reply
#17
(23-09-2019, 13:14 PM)Razorsedge Wrote: this company has been round for 176 years and I do think in the end was seriously mis-managed

The govt could have bailed them out. Irony is their bankers are RBS who were bailed out by the govt (albeit not this one)
Apparently they were a nationalised company until 1972.
Reply
#18
(23-09-2019, 13:18 PM)Yuri Gagarin Wrote: Apparently they were a nationalised company until 1972.


Oh wow, bit like BA who were back in the days nationalised now owned by some Spanish group.

They did have a Chinese backer, so not sure what happened there
Reply
#19
(23-09-2019, 09:25 AM)Yuri Gagarin Wrote: 9000 jobs going. A massive shame.
 Apparently it will cost approx £600 million to repatriate everyone.  Why are the govt. prepared to fork out for that, but not fork out £200 million as a guarantee to keep the company afloat while they try and stabilise it? That's £400 million!
Some will say "it will be a waste of money as they'll likely still go bust".  It would be a waste of 1/3 of the sum we are now wasting, better still, there might have been a way to turn the company around.  Short-termism has been what has dogged industry for decades - the bottom line is king.
Or am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something - EU State Aid Rules, which neo-liberal politicians in the UK helped put into place.


'Government sources point out that the UK was the country that pushed hardest within the EU for the imposition of state aid rules to be enforced after many years of EU governments rescuing sensitive industries like airlines and car makers. The government's previous refusal to offer assistance to companies like Carillion would make a U-turn on this approach very difficult in principle and in practice.

Although the UK is scheduled to leave the EU on 31 October, any new relationship is yet to be determined and issues such as respective rules on state aid will be part of that discussion. The EU in particular is keen to preserve a "level playing field" when it comes to European competition.

'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49781920




Reply
#20
(23-09-2019, 13:39 PM)Raggy Wrote: Yes you are missing something - EU State Aid Rules, which neo-liberal politicians in the UK helped put into place.


'Government sources point out that the UK was the country that pushed hardest within the EU for the imposition of state aid rules to be enforced after many years of EU governments rescuing sensitive industries like airlines and car makers. The government's previous refusal to offer assistance to companies like Carillion would make a U-turn on this approach very difficult in principle and in practice.

Although the UK is scheduled to leave the EU on 31 October, any new relationship is yet to be determined and issues such as respective rules on state aid will be part of that discussion. The EU in particular is keen to preserve a "level playing field" when it comes to European competition.

'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49781920




Tories wanted to stop any renationalisation innit.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)