Travel Weekly’s Lucy Huxley says most in the industry would agree the scheme has been a benefit since its founding
Atol reform is a complex and sometimes prickly subject, depending on your business model and standpoint on segregation of funds.
It’s also fair to say it’s probably not the first topic of conversation among friends in the pub, unless you have a particular interest in the regulation of the travel industry.
Despite this complexity – and the lengthy and ongoing consultation process, which is now set to continue throughout this year – few would deny the importance of getting it right for both travel companies and consumers.
Most in the industry would agree the Atol scheme has been a benefit
Since it was first called upon following the Court Line collapse in 1974, the Atol scheme has kicked into action for numerous high-profile failures – from Laker Airways and ILG in the 80s and 90s to XL Leisure Group, Monarch and Thomas Cook in more recent times.
Since 2000 alone, the scheme has repatriated almost a quarter of a million holidaymakers and settled more than 1.7 million claims for future bookings with failed operators.
While no company failure reflects well on the industry, the safety net of Atol has helped temper some of its reputational damage by protecting many of the customers affected.
As I write this column, stakeholders are preparing to gather at Westminster for a reception to mark the first 50 years of the scheme – and no doubt debate its future.
While very few in business have much time for regulation, most in the industry would agree the Atol scheme has been a benefit since its founding more than half a century ago.
Comment originally from Travel Weekly, January 25 edition