Hacker News Reader

Comment by CaliforniaKarl | Hacker News Reader

I don't think "stranding" is the right word.

For some time now, UK companies selling "package holidays" (with hotel, air, etc. all from one vendor and with one bill) are required to put up funds that the government uses to repatriate those who are already traveling when a company goes under:

https://www.caa.co.uk/atol-protection/

Note that it does not cover trips that people put together themselves; in that case, I expect they'd only have to arrange for a flight home (as they paid for the other parts themselves).

The CAA (the UK's Civil Aviation Authority) already has a site up for Thomas Cook customers:

https://thomascook.caa.co.uk

View on HN

“Temporarily stuck until they can get a flight scheduled” is better, but wordy.

These vacationers are in safe countries with good infrastructure. They definitely aren’t stranded like Tom Hanks in Cast Away. However, the other airlines can’t magic up 150,000 seats, so it might mean that some people will take a while to get home.

Thomas Cook was more than just a travel agent. They were also an airline…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook_Airlines

… and a hotel chain …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cook_Hotels_&_Resorts

I would not be surprised if the UK has laws in place, and/or are using ATOL funds, so that the existing Thomas Cook aircraft can be pressed into service for the return journeys.

For example, return arrangements have already been confirmed for those traveling from Croatia on the 23rd:

https://thomascook.caa.co.uk/customers/if-you-are-currently-...

The return flight details are identical to the original Thomas Cook flights (other than the flight numbers, which are similar).

> The return flight details are identical to the original Thomas Cook flights (other than the flight numbers, which are similar).

I suspect it's different operators re-using the same flight numbers and airport slots.

ZT is Titan (a short notice lease provider, which makes sense): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Airways

U2 is easyJet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyJet

Titan Airways are confirmed as providing support:

> Following the collapse of Thomas Cook, Titan Airways are working in co-ordination with the Civil Aviation Authority to provide return flights back to the UK for those passengers currently overseas.

http://www.titan-airways.com/

In one of the articles it said one hotel wasn't letting guests leave without paying more money, as the hotel believed they weren't going to get paid. So in some extreme cases it's not just about getting flights back to the UK.

Hmm, I’d be careful with this sort of behavior. Not letting people leave is the definition of kidnapping and I can’t think of any jurisdiction that doesn’t look dimly upon it.

They just need to get the cops to come and arrest them for not paying. The cops can "kidnap" them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbVJU1CuM0Q

This has been in planning between the CAA and major airlines since at least December 2018. (See 'Project Matterhorn').

The operation will temporarily be the 5th largest airline in the UK, with a fleet of around 50 aircraft.

Why does only cover "package holidays" and not all round-trip air tickets? That distinction doesn't make sense except as a subsidy of package deal providers...

It’s not a subsidy; the companies which sell package holidays need to put the cash up.

It was done because of financially unstable package holiday companies setting up and then failing leaving people stranded. Most people in the UK know to buy an ‘ATOL Protected’ holiday if they go for a package deal.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Why doesn't ATOL protect non-package customers of Thomas Cook airlines? Why didn't it protect the customers of Monarch Airlines? Given the large number of airlines that have collapsed and stranded customers in the last couple of years, the "holiday package" limitation just doesn't make sense.

It ends up being a subsidy when the largest provider collapses and the funds don't cover the problem. Who pays then? Oh, the government.

Given that the Air Travel Trust has £170 million of cash and £400 million of insurance; that when Monarch Airlines failed they could repatriate "around 110,000 passengers" for £16.3 million [1]; and that Thomas Cook's collapse leaves about 150,000 holidaymakers [2] in need of repatriation; it seems unlikely the funds will fail to cover the problem.

There might be other expenses, outside the scope of the ATT, that the government ends up paying - there are estimates as high as £600 million [3] - but arguably that's a sign the scope of the compulsory insurance scheme should be broader, not narrower :)

[1] http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATT_Accounts_2018.pdf [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49791249 [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49781920

Who are also first in line to collect when the company goes into bankruptcy and there is still money somewhere.

The OP implied that it would cover round trip tickets. It just wouldn't also cover hotels etc before the return flight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com