Thomas Cook Collapses..
Sep 23rd, 2019, 10:22 PM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sep 23rd, 2019, 10:50 PM
#24
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"People in the UK are very lucky that this happened before Brexit." "Management helping its self to the cash instead of investing in the company."
UK-based travellers affected by TC's collapse are largely protected by two industry programmes - ATOL and ABTA bonds - which predate all EU traveller protection rules. Unlike the EU-mandated minimum rights, the ATOL and ABTA systems actually mobilise, almost immediately, replacement repatriation flights. TC went bust about 9 am UK time on Sep 23: by midnight over 90% of travellers due to return that day had been taken home on flights organised by Britain's Civil Aviation Authority,
The threat of Brexit has contributed to TC's problems (by causing a 20% devaluation in sterling, and therefore helping depress demand for foreign travel and inflating TC's debts): but had Brexit actually occurred after TC's collapse, UK-based travellers would have had almost identical protection. Though I'm usually the first to criticise our current hapless government and all its doings, the efficiency with which our public servants have swung into pre-planned action has so far been quite remarkable. Probably because our ghastly Prime Minster was out of the country at the time, so couldn't interfere, and our Trotskyite Leader of the Opposition was plotting the destruction of his own party. Parliament, being suspended, couldn't get in the way either.
"Management helping its self to the cash instead of investing in the company."
TC's basic problem was that over the past decade it spent money like a drunken sailor on assets (like planes) it ultimately didn't need. It finally collapsed because it couldn't service its £1.9 billion debt burden. Some may argue - possibly correctly - that senior management were overpaid. But if so they were overpaid because they met shareholders' expectations of lavish spending on new toys and investor payback. It's stupid, fabulously inaccurate and downright libellous to claim "management was helping itself to cash instead of investing". The truth is that shareholders agreed to pay management absurd bonuses for irresponsibly excessive investment.
UK-based travellers affected by TC's collapse are largely protected by two industry programmes - ATOL and ABTA bonds - which predate all EU traveller protection rules. Unlike the EU-mandated minimum rights, the ATOL and ABTA systems actually mobilise, almost immediately, replacement repatriation flights. TC went bust about 9 am UK time on Sep 23: by midnight over 90% of travellers due to return that day had been taken home on flights organised by Britain's Civil Aviation Authority,
The threat of Brexit has contributed to TC's problems (by causing a 20% devaluation in sterling, and therefore helping depress demand for foreign travel and inflating TC's debts): but had Brexit actually occurred after TC's collapse, UK-based travellers would have had almost identical protection. Though I'm usually the first to criticise our current hapless government and all its doings, the efficiency with which our public servants have swung into pre-planned action has so far been quite remarkable. Probably because our ghastly Prime Minster was out of the country at the time, so couldn't interfere, and our Trotskyite Leader of the Opposition was plotting the destruction of his own party. Parliament, being suspended, couldn't get in the way either.
"Management helping its self to the cash instead of investing in the company."
TC's basic problem was that over the past decade it spent money like a drunken sailor on assets (like planes) it ultimately didn't need. It finally collapsed because it couldn't service its £1.9 billion debt burden. Some may argue - possibly correctly - that senior management were overpaid. But if so they were overpaid because they met shareholders' expectations of lavish spending on new toys and investor payback. It's stupid, fabulously inaccurate and downright libellous to claim "management was helping itself to cash instead of investing". The truth is that shareholders agreed to pay management absurd bonuses for irresponsibly excessive investment.
Sep 23rd, 2019, 11:15 PM
#25
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"People in the UK are very lucky that this happened before Brexit." "Management helping its self to the cash instead of investing in the company."
UK-based travellers affected by TC's collapse are largely protected by two industry programmes - ATOL and ABTA bonds - which predate all EU traveller protection rules. Unlike the EU-mandated minimum rights, the ATOL and ABTA systems actually mobilise, almost immediately, replacement repatriation flights. TC went bust about 9 am UK time on Sep 23: by midnight over 90% of travellers due to return that day had been taken home on flights organised by Britain's Civil Aviation Authority,
The threat of Brexit has contributed to TC's problems (by causing a 20% devaluation in sterling, and therefore helping depress demand for foreign travel and inflating TC's debts): but had Brexit actually occurred after TC's collapse, UK-based travellers would have had almost identical protection. Though I'm usually the first to criticise our current hapless government and all its doings, the efficiency with which our public servants have swung into pre-planned action has so far been quite remarkable. Probably because our ghastly Prime Minster was out of the country at the time, so couldn't interfere, and our Trotskyite Leader of the Opposition was plotting the destruction of his own party. Parliament, being suspended, couldn't get in the way either.
"Management helping its self to the cash instead of investing in the company."
TC's basic problem was that over the past decade it spent money like a drunken sailor on assets (like planes) it ultimately didn't need. It finally collapsed because it couldn't service its £1.9 billion debt burden. Some may argue - possibly correctly - that senior management were overpaid. But if so they were overpaid because they met shareholders' expectations of lavish spending on new toys and investor payback. It's stupid, fabulously inaccurate and downright libellous to claim "management was helping itself to cash instead of investing". The truth is that shareholders agreed to pay management absurd bonuses for irresponsibly excessive investment.
UK-based travellers affected by TC's collapse are largely protected by two industry programmes - ATOL and ABTA bonds - which predate all EU traveller protection rules. Unlike the EU-mandated minimum rights, the ATOL and ABTA systems actually mobilise, almost immediately, replacement repatriation flights. TC went bust about 9 am UK time on Sep 23: by midnight over 90% of travellers due to return that day had been taken home on flights organised by Britain's Civil Aviation Authority,
The threat of Brexit has contributed to TC's problems (by causing a 20% devaluation in sterling, and therefore helping depress demand for foreign travel and inflating TC's debts): but had Brexit actually occurred after TC's collapse, UK-based travellers would have had almost identical protection. Though I'm usually the first to criticise our current hapless government and all its doings, the efficiency with which our public servants have swung into pre-planned action has so far been quite remarkable. Probably because our ghastly Prime Minster was out of the country at the time, so couldn't interfere, and our Trotskyite Leader of the Opposition was plotting the destruction of his own party. Parliament, being suspended, couldn't get in the way either.
"Management helping its self to the cash instead of investing in the company."
TC's basic problem was that over the past decade it spent money like a drunken sailor on assets (like planes) it ultimately didn't need. It finally collapsed because it couldn't service its £1.9 billion debt burden. Some may argue - possibly correctly - that senior management were overpaid. But if so they were overpaid because they met shareholders' expectations of lavish spending on new toys and investor payback. It's stupid, fabulously inaccurate and downright libellous to claim "management was helping itself to cash instead of investing". The truth is that shareholders agreed to pay management absurd bonuses for irresponsibly excessive investment.
But in fact management IS under a lot of pressure and scrutiny related to salary and bonuses paid as the company was headed toward bankruptcy. I think that post was just loose language - 'helping itself' which could imply stealing or cooking the books to appear to meet performance hurdles, charges which I have not seen made. But cash, etc paid to management is a key point now under formal investigation so the OP is not as wildly far off as you suggest.
