Time to scrap our outdated bonding system

TravelMole Comment by Jeremy Skidmore

A few years ago I went to a press briefing at the Civil Aviation Authority, where we were presented with a chart of all the various types of consumer protection on offer, and the details of the gaps in cover.

To call the system confusing is a gross understatement. I’ve been writing about the travel industry for 20 years and would struggle to give you a definitive run down of exactly what is and isn’t covered. How on earth is the average holidaymaker supposed to know what is going on?

Now, the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee (ATIPAC) has added to the perception that the travel industry is run by cowboys with its assertion that the ‘wild west’ is taking over.

It is strongly critical of the government for ignoring the CAA’s advice to extend financial protection to all air travellers flying from the UK, on international flights, by introducing a £1 passenger charge on all tickets. ATIPAC has also noted the further decline in the coverage of the air travel organiser’s licence, which used to account for around 95 per cent of holidays and now barely covers half of them.

But this government, which prefers to react to every mess it finds itself in rather than taking preventative action first, was never going to give the CAA’s plan the go-ahead, particularly following strong lobbying against the levy from British Airways and Ryanair. Millions of voters enjoy low cost travel, so why do something to upset them?

Even if the government had taken the bull by the horns, our protection system would still have more holes than a string vest. The CAA is powerless against airlines operating outside the UK and it’s questionable whether they would have real teeth against carriers who are based overseas. Furthermore, it can do nothing to protect the millions of people who buy accommodation only, usually over the Internet.

Now, with major companies considering whether to renew their ATOLs, the CAA wants to replace bonding with a £1 per passenger charge.

That might create a more level playing field for operators, but it would do nothing to plug the growing gaps in cover.

In 2006, it is impossible to have all-encompassing consumer protection and surely now is the time to scrap all cover for travellers.

This is not as radical as it sounds. Twenty years ago, the government of the day was scared stiff of the prospect of holidaymakers being stranded in Europe.  Now, we live in an affluent society. People can fly abroad for the cost of a half-decent meal and are very familiar with Mediterranean resorts.

Last summer’s failure of a no-frills airline Eujet left tens of thousands of people stranded, but did not lead to anyone holding their front pages. Rivals simply gave passengers a lift home for a small fee. I’m sure the same would happen if an atol holder went down.

The Foreign Office obviously has to act if Britons are in danger, for example caught in a hurricane or war zone, but there’s no longer the feeling that people need hand holding to make their own way back from a holiday hotspot.

What of people buying more expensive packages? Well, let the buyers beware. If they are worried about the risk, they can buy a specific insurance policy to cover them in the event of a failure.

Let’s be honest; the current system doesn’t work. The proposed changes will be an improvement, because they will put all operators on a level playing field. But they will not fix the problems.

It’s time to scrap our ridiculous bonding system.

What do you think?