Three weeks after the collapse of XL, and it has become even clearer that not all agents in the retail arena were operating on a level playing field.
Those agents that were operating within the Civil Aviation Authority guidelines, complying and practising using an ATOL, look likely to incur higher costs and greater losses than those that were not. Ludicrous!
Those ‘conforming’ agents offered support to their customers to ensure they were refunded or rebooked in a timely, efficient manner, engendering trust during a crucial period for the travel industry. In contrast, the ‘non-conformers’ offered nothing more than a web address for the CAA.
How confusing for the consumer. Both agents carried the same publicised badge of security – the ABTA logo – suggesting customers’ money was safe, yet both operated in completely different ways, depending on whether a package holiday had been booked with ATOL protection or not.
In an environment where nothing is sacred and even high street banks are in trouble, we cannot continue to confuse the customer or deceive them with regards to the safety of their hard earned cash. Why should we expect a customer to understand the nuances of ATOL and ABTA? And indeed, why should they have to? Surely, money is simply protected or it isn’t?
If any good is to come of this failure and the loss of around 2,000 jobs, then it must be to bring clarity to the protection of customers’ money, along with a full publicity campaign to communicate to the public just how robust our industry is in terms of consumer protection.
The vast majority of agents have shown how well they can cope in the face of adversity – now is the time to show our teeth.
