29 April 2009

AITO 'cautiously' accepts Ã&#pound;3 ATOL fee

The Association of Independent Tour Operators has cautiously accepted the Ã&#pound;3 per person figure mooted by the CAA in respect of financial protection for passengers.

Its chairman Derek Moore said: ââ¬ÅâœNo-one likes to see costs increasing, particularly in these beleaguered times, but Ã&#pound;3 per person is probably what most tour operator members would have found themselves paying, in the current economic climate, to insurance companies for bonds under the old system.

ââ¬ÅâœItââ¬â¢s important to remember, too, what this Ã&#pound;3 buys for passengers, which can be worth many thousands of pounds to them if something goes wrong; this is a very valuable piece of protection, extremely well worth having from the consumer perspective.

ââ¬ÅâœWe havenââ¬â¢t of course studied the proposals in depth yet but, on the face of it, what the CAA says seems to make sound sense in the current economic climate.ââ¬~

Moore said AITO would be going out to its 150 tour operating members to seek individual company input before going back formally to the CAA.

But ABTA has voiced its opposition to the increase, calling instead for a complete overhaul of the protection scheme.

"We have made clear to the Department for Transport and the CAA our members' frustration and disappointment at the prospect of an increase in APC, so soon after it was launched at the rate of Ã&#pound;1 per passenger," said its chief executive Mark Tanzer yesterday.

By Bev Fearis

• PRINT
• SEND TO A FRIEND
• SHARE

Post your comment

Your Comments (2)

, be the first to post a comment.
Your email:

Your comment title:


Your comment:

Email other comments made to this story

5 characters

• &#pound;3 ATOL fee
  
  

  I could just about live with &#pound;3 if I saw the CAA going after those who flaunt the regulations and hence earn some revenue from fines. At present it is those who abide by the laws who pay for the privilege. I look forward to the outcome of the Travel Republic court case, it might clear the way for the CAA to be more proactive in this area.

  By Alistair McLean, Friday, May 1, 2009
• Sounds Sense ? who to ?
  
  

  It does not make sound sense to any company that has a healthy balance sheet coupled with a good business model - they will be paying far more than they were previously with insurance bonds. The previous bonding system worked well and kept our costs down. Now we have the strong expected to subsidise the weak or inefficient. If an insurer previously had confidence in you, you paid a low premium - and the market sorted out the higher risks and rates. At &#pound;1 pp the new rules were just about acceptable, but at &#pound;2 to &#pound;3 - no. That said, with the current credit crisis in the UK the insurance industry may have had to jack up premiums to a higher level than before but that is another story.

  By Nick Cooper, Thursday, April 30, 2009