Company failures are, sadly, part and parcel of business, especially in a sector like travel. But it’s rare to see such an outpouring of emotion as we have seen this week following the demise of Monarch after 49 years.
So many people worked for or with the group or flew on its aircraft over the decades and were genuinely upset to see planes bearing the iconic crown logo grounded.
The collapse was described as a ‘tragedy’ for the 1,858 people who have lost their jobs and a ‘disaster’ for the trade and for Monarch’s many loyal customers.
Obviously, the horrific events in Las Vegas on the day Monarch folded temper such sentiments. But there is no doubt that Monarch going bust caused profound disappointment and sadness, and also raised serious concerns.
The government’s response in repatriating all passengers has thrown up important questions around regulation and where this leaves the UK’s Atol scheme.
If everyone who flies overseas is going to be repatriated in the event of a failure, regardless of whether they are Atol-protected, why should any consumer look for the Atol logo?
And what is the incentive for a tour operator or any travel organiser to add a £2.50 per person Atol Protection Contribution to every booking to comply with Atol licensing?
Now would be a good time to look at the Atol reform, so long promised by the Department for Transport and CAA.
Unfortunately, the government has been so slow to revise the UK Package Travel Regulations in line with the European Package Travel Directive, which comes into force in January and with which businesses must comply by July, that there is no time to change anything in the immediate future. Must the industry be left in limbo and confusion? Or will the government sort out a mess of its own making?
Comment from Travel Weekly, October 5 edition