# Why did the CAA not use Monarch aircraft to repatriate stranded Monarch passengers?

The CAA has been secretly planning for some weeks a repatriation 'airlift' in case the airline folded. Apparently they are chartering 30 or so planes from airlines including Qatar Airways for this.

Since Monarch is now bust, all the Monarch aircraft are sitting idle on the tarmac. Why not use those planes to repatriate people? Surely, it would be a lot cheaper and easier than chartering a whole bunch of other aircraft. They could even use the Monarch crews, who are all now unemployed, after all.

• I suspect this has very little to do with aviation as such: it's a legal/financial issue. With Monarch in administration, who owns those aircraft? If the CAA wants to lease them, who do they talk to? Who would insure the aircraft and the operations? The staff are unemployed (I assume), so would the CAA have to employ them as employees or contractors? What are the payroll, legal and liability issues of doing that? Now, all those things could be solved given enough time, but with thousands of people stranded you need a quick and reliable solution, which is chartering in this case. – Pondlife Oct 3 '17 at 16:48
• @Pondlife: If Monarch owned the planes, you'd talk to the administrator (KPMG). Legally, they must extract as much value from the remaining assets as possible. If leased, the owners aren't getting any money anymore, and would presumably be happy with a short-term lease. Insurance is not a real problem for a government. – MSalters Oct 6 '17 at 7:08

• Unlikely, doing the math... The article linked in the question says it will cost about \$61m GBP or \$80.3m USD to get the approximately 110,000 passengers repatriated. If you work it out, that averages \\$730 USD per seat for a one-way flight. Not much of a deal if you ask me. – Ron Beyer Oct 5 '17 at 12:37