11 June 2008

FTO calls for fairer deal for airline passengers

The Federation of Tour Operators has hit out at the government for failing to protect air travellers when airlines go bust.

The FTO says air passengers who do not book their flight as part of a package should be given the same amount of protection from failing carriers as those who do.

In April this year financial steps were taken that meant customers of any failed tour operator would be covered for repatriation and refunds thanks to a Ã&#pound;1 per passenger Air Travel OrganisersÃ¢â¬â¢ Licensing Protection Contributions arrangement.

The FTO and airlines argued that this scheme should be widened to protect all customers of airlines but the government refused to agree to this.

In light of the current uncertainty around airlinesÃ¢â¬â¢ survival chances as fuel costs rise, economies nosedive and budget carriers compete fiercely, the FTO has now re-issued its call for a fairer playing field between the tour operators and the airlines.

FTO director general Andrew Cooper said: Ã¢â¬ÅâœI suspect one reason why this logical extension of customer protection has been blocked is the lingering legacy of old-style state-owned, national carrier airlines which sowed a mentality of bogus nationalism and the now quite erroneous belief that airlines donÃ¢â¬â¢t go bust.

Ã¢â¬ÅâœIt is high time that our government and regulator urgently put in place proper protection for citizens and also set tour operators a level runway to ensure fair competition. Stranded families and financially disadvantaged travellers will neither forgive nor forget a government which waited for a major airline collapse before acting.Ã¢â¬~

He added: Ã¢â¬ÅâœEvents have shown that airline customers badly need comparable protection to customers of tour operators, and in turn tour operators deserve a level playing field to compete fairly with airlines, given the increasingly blurred and irrelevant line between a Ã¢â¬ËœpackageÃ¢â¬â¢ and separate air and hotel bookings. Indeed research shows that many airline passengers wrongly believe they already enjoy comparable protection to those on packages.Ã¢â¬~

The call comes hot on the heels of comments made recently by IATAÃ¢â¬â¢s director general Giovanni Bisignani which described airlines as being in uncharted territory. It also follows the recent demise of all-business carrier Silverjet whose customers must now apply as unsecured creditors to the airlineÃ¢â¬â¢s administrator.

By Dinah Hatch

Post your comment

Your Comments (5)

My Fridge isn't protected, why my ticket

You are correct when you say "Surely if he bought a fridge he would not expect to pay insurance to protect him against the supplier going bust before the fridge was delivered." But I also don't expect to pay a pound to some government run bureaucracy when I buy a fridge either. I'm a big boy and don't need a nanny-state to protect me from the real world. Passengers have the option of buying insurance for all their travel needs. A competent travel agent should be able to advise its customer on what their best options are. Don't forget such a scheme is more likely to drive your customers to the web.

By Tom Bowlie, Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Don't give away new revenue income sources !

Its amazes me that agents would want a levy to include such cover when the consumer should have a choice and the agent can protect all their flights under one policy to give a peace of mind guarantee and charge a 'repatriation administration fee' to cover the cost or make a profit. Before you know it the levy will cover Travel Insurance and other such services and agents will have no way of creating auxiliary revenues.

By Paul Mclean, Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Yes this again

Its amazing that Tom Bowlie feels that customers should insure themselves against supplier failure. Surely if he bought a fridge he would not expect to pay insurance to protect him against the supplier going bust before the fridge was delivered. The travel industry has a duty of care to protect the customer from financial failure of a supplier, after all they take the money early and earn a tremendous amount of interest on it so the least that they can do is protect that money until the goods are delivered. It's interesting to note that the FTO want all suppliers to be included in the new &#pound;1 scheme - now that the customer is paying. So you have to be a litle sceptical, do the FTO believe customer financial protection is a good thing in general or only a good idea if the customer pays? David Speakman Chairman Travel Counsellors Plc

By David Speakman, Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Unhelpful

It's nothing to do with passenger choices - every airline claims to be financially sound - look at Silverjet in the days up to its grounding - but the most vociferous opposition to a levy comes from the airlines themselves, and not just 'flag carriers'. When you look at how airlines happily think up extra charges and fees, their resistance to a &#pound;1 levy looks childish and even selfish.

By W Shearer, Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Oh not this again

If passenger's feel they need protection, they should buy insurance. Or perhaps they should make better choices.

By Tom Bowlie, Tuesday, June 10, 2008