XL Investigation Shocker

[Vana]

Apparently Sky news are saying XL are being investigated as after the XL bankruptacy was announced and passengers were left stranded, XL flew their planes home empty instead of taking passengers back with them.


Hope that is clear, not much more at the moment breaking news, how could they fly home and not take passengers.

 

[UKDEB]

The rules surrounding insolvency are complicated. The MD of XL was vociferous in his condemnation of the CAA for not allowing XL's aircraft to bring home stranded passengers at the start of all this and Richard Branson also made similar noises a few days later.

 

[paulh]

the planes that did fly people back,didnt come to manchester.they went to paris.thus stoping the addminastators siezing them.they were taken over buy the french and german arms which are still opperating.have hear that the florida side TCD was one of the only parts making money
Paulh

 

[Buster_uk]

All XL planes were leased. Once declared bankrupt the planes reverted back to the lessor on the instructions of the administrator.

 

[Vana]

So why are they being investigated? Sky is confusing the matter ?

 

[paulh]

All XL planes were leased. Once declared bankrupt the planes reverted back to the lessor on the instructions of the administrator.

An XL Airways flight from Sanford in Florida, USA due to land at Manchester Airport at 9.35am today ,was diverted to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris where the plane is registered

as long as there getting money for that plane they can still fly it,the plane then was transfered to there french or german opperations whichare still opperating
Paulh

 

[wayneg]

I saw the news report on sky today but I believe its a general enquiry the pilots are asking for, not an enquiry into XL.
Its The British Airline Pilots Association that are asking the questions.

Personally I think there should be laws in place to continue the recovery of customers with the collapsed airlines planes. It was estimated it was going to cost in excess of £20m to get everyone home. Thre must be a way of using the planes and pilots that are going to be grounded.

Anyways heres the story in on Telegraph website, couldn't see it on Sky.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...gers-stranded-as-empty-planes-flown-home.html

 

[Revtel]

It would be eminently sensible to allow two or three weeks grace to an airline who become insolvent, giving them permission to continue flying overseas customers home within that time. Far better than wheel-clamping the planes or, even worse, forcing passengers to disembark who are waiting to take off. Too obvious, I suppose.

(I don't think that this latest revelation is at all the fault of XL)

 

[Vana]

An XL Airways flight from Sanford in Florida, USA due to land at Manchester Airport at 9.35am today ,was diverted to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris where the plane is registered

as long as there getting money for that plane they can still fly it,the plane then was transfered to there french or german opperations whichare still opperating
Paulh

If the French and German side is still operating I am confused how it is not down the them to resuce the stranded passengers or at least some of them?

 

[Sunrisedream]

Found this article on a possible new airline, Kiss Air - makes interesting reading

http://www.ttglive.com/home

 

[UKDEB]

Once a company goes into receivership, the Administrator takes control of all the assets. Even if they were willing to cover the cost, I don't imagine the CAA has any jurisdiction. Who would fly them and staff them? The stranded crews are the obvious answer, but again, even if the CAA was willing to cover the cost, there must be all sorts of complications. Other than the rules surrounding insolvency, some other things which immediately spring to mind are employment laws and insurance. I'm sure there must be many more considerations.

 

[wayneg]

I am sure you are right Deb as the law stands now, I just wonder if there is a way of changing it so funding goes straight to the rescue of passengers coninueing service of the airline in trouble, rather than letting it collapse, stop service then starting a rescue plan with other airlines.
Probably not, they have no doubt looked at every angle but I would have thought they could find a better way than they have now.

 

[DCLMan]

Found this article on a possible new airline, Kiss Air - makes interesting reading

http://www.ttglive.com/home

That sounds very dodgy.

 

[UKDEB]

I am sure you are right Deb as the law stands now, I just wonder if there is a way of changing it so funding goes straight to the rescue of passengers coninueing service of the airline in trouble, rather than letting it collapse, stop service then starting a rescue plan with other airlines.
Probably not, they have no doubt looked at every angle but I would have thought they could find a better way than they have now.

Yes, I agree. When it first happened, I was jumping up and down at the apparent lack of common sense - it seemed a nonsense that the CAA was having to fly passengers home with other airlines when they could have been coming back on those aircraft otherwise sitting there doing nothing - but the more I thought about it, the more I realised it probably isn't as straight forward as it appears. Perhaps this pickle will cause some changes to be made. There's a revealing comment in the Telegraph article : In addition the Department for Transport refused to the provide the financial guarantees which would have made it possible for passenger flights to take place.

 

[Revtel]

There's a revealing comment in the Telegraph article : In addition the Department for Transport refused to the provide the financial guarantees which would have made it possible for passenger flights to take place.

This sounds like the DoT are part of the problem. In which case, there is surely an argument for a change in the law which would allow a newly-insolvent company to continue operations for a short time with the express remit of bringing people home. After all, the "Department of Transport" only follows the rules laid down by Parliament.

If Virgin went bust, for example, surely they could be given two weeks grace before the planes were grounded and the crews sacked. It wouldn't stop the cancellation of holidays, but at least it would bring people home safely. It can't be that complicated.

In the US, there are laws which provide protection for companies which allow them to continue operations even when they are technically insolvent. I seem to recall US Airways (I may be wrong) were in a similar position not so long ago.

 

[Elle]

In the US, there are laws which provide protection for companies which allow them to continue operations even when they are technically insolvent. I seem to recall US Airways (I may be wrong) were in a similar position not so long ago.

Yes its called Chapter 11, before a company goes totally bust they can file for Chapter 11 (strangely thats what Leamans have done but the world is reporting them gone) This gives them time to re-structure and re-organise before either folding or carrying on trading.

Companies that have done this in recent times include Alamo, US Airways and United Airlines.

It just makes sense as it stops all their creditors demanding monies owed and gives them time to get sorted, in doing so it protects the customer as well.

Tim