Let’s level the playing field with airlines
Steve Endacott
Chairman Life's Echo, Neural River, Neural Voice and Electric Car Organization | Travel Industry Thought Leader | Keynote Speaker | Sustainable Tourism Advocate
Carriers have lost their ‘cloaks of invincibility’, says Steve Endacott
The UK travel industry needs a healthy airline sector to operate, so I was pleased to see that easyJet, British Airways and, hopefully soon, Virgin Atlantic have secured extra funding and look relatively safe so long as the flying lockdown does not stretch further than six months.
David Speakman, founder of Travel Counsellors, has been highly critical of the airlines and widely quoted describing them as “operating a Ponzi scheme” where they demand full payment from customers on booking and then use customer cash as they see fit.
Recent research by Bank of America seems to support this view. The bank looked at the amount of money each airline banked from un-flown flights (much of which will need to be refunded) as a percentage of how much cash it had in the bank.
As you can see from the accompanying chart, a few airlines like Ryanair had enough cash to afford refunds – irrespective of how easy they have made getting these – but many did not.
I appreciate airlines need cash upfront to buy or lease capital-intensive assets like aircraft and customers benefit from this in the form of efficient new aircraft and lower prices.
Most airlines have been able to raise substantial funds to prevent collapse, showing robustness in their models – although David Speakman may rightly argue that these loans have been secured on the basis of airlines being able to access billions in unprotected consumer cash as soon as they start flying again.
So should airlines be forced to follow online travel agents and retailers in adopting trust fund models?
In that case, a customer’s cash would only be released to airlines once the customer has flown.
I’m sure airlines would argue these measures would be “draconian” given their capital intensive nature and the current financial pressure they are under.
But if agents and hoteliers aren’t allowed to use customer cash as interest-free loans why are airlines? Why should airlines be allowed to use customer money before they provide the service contracted?
Ironically, in the short term, the airlines’ credit card clearers are enforcing ‘quasi’ trust funds by holding on to billions of airlines’ cash as protection against the high level of credit-card recharges they are expecting on cancelled flights. So the hit on cash flow may not be as large as people think.
Ultimately, I’m in no doubt the right thing would be to force airlines to protect customers cash 100% with trust funds, but I accept this may take a number of years to deliver.
In the short term, the priority needs to be getting UK airlines flying again so they are able to deliver deferred flights or refund customers. I would not want anything that risks this.
However, in the post-corona environment regulators must accept airlines are riskier and at least level the bonding playing field.
Many airlines will have debt mountains to pay down and if they don’t operate trust fund protection they will represent a much bigger risk than trust fund operating OTAs like On the Beach and travel companies and networks such as Travel Counsellors and Trailfinders.
It is ridiculous for airlines to remain unbonded and Atol fee-free while lower-risk businesses are required to fund the replenishment of the Atol fund, which is needed as the ultimate guarantor of consumers’ money.
It is also beyond ridiculous that when the next airline fails the government will repatriate all UK citizens whether they have paid fees for repatriation or not.
It is time the CAA finally implemented its stated desire for an ‘all seats levy”.
This could be collected across all flights leaving the UK whether a customer has DIY booked a holiday via Google, using low-cost carrier sites and un-bonded bed banks like Booking.com, or has brought the same package via an OTA, homeworker or high street travel agent.
The current Atol fund is virtually empty after the Thomas Cook collapse and will be further hit via travel collapses in the next six months.
It is likely the current £2.50 per passenger fee will have to double to £5.00, but at least it will replenish much quicker if airlines also have to pay.
In the longer term, the CAA should enforce trust funds across the board or charge a hefty premium to the standard Atol fee for any company refusing to implement this basic level of protection for customer funds.
I wish all UK airlines a successful rebound, but if coronavirus has done anything it has removed their false ‘cloak of invincibility. They need to be brought into the consumer protection fold.
Travel Payments Strategist | Up in the Air
4 年As a global industry we'll have to have a discussion with all the stakeholders on how to avoid this from happening again in the future. Mandatory insurance, consumer protection schemes, trusts and delayed funding (or even delayed capture) all come to mind, with all their pros and cons. "Unfortunately", Airlines do not offer the option to pay in person at the arrival gate, upon returning to your final destination.. (like paying your hotel bill when you check out). Way back it was decided that issuing a (paper) ticket would qualify as a trigger to move the money from the customer to the airline, we now know that that is not a "pandemic-proof-process". So back to the drawing board!
The admin side is already in place for airlines and ticketing agents. BSP collects ticketing revenue from agents when they issue tickets, and redistributes to the airlines. Just delay the redistribution until after the service has been delivered. But BSP is run by International Air Transport Association (IATA) which is the airlines trade group. So idea wouldn’t get much support methinks....
Car Rental Consultant, Specialising in Mobility Solutions. We are proud to serve our customer in a global world
4 年It’s pretty simple really. Seller; I’m not giving you the product you have purchased. Buyer; okay I’ll have my refund as per the law. Seller; er er No I need it because our industry is in trouble. Buyer; but my industry is in trouble and that’s my money One thing is clear we need to all sit down and come up with a global solution so this doesn't happen again. Sadly we need support from the UK Government and whilst they have been approached before about this issue, they seem more concerned that travel Agents and tour operators should carry the risk. I guess it comes back to understanding travel and more the cry that the UK should appoint a Minister of Tourism after all one in ten jobs are in the leisure industry
Founder at Able2Fly
4 年I repeat my message from a week ago in response to a similar analysis posted by Shashank Nigam. The answer might be for all airlines to report this type of "solvency" data every month to their national regulator (and to have their operator licence withdrawn if they don't). This will give the regulator a chance to "manage" risk of airline failure rather than wait until it happens and then spend a fortune tryng to clean up the mess. The pre-sold revenue cash should be held in Escrow under an ATOL-type scheme (but the airlines can receive any interest earned as their reward for convincing passengers to pay before the service is delivered). Airlines would not be allowed to utilise future revenues to cover today's operating costs (former directors of FlyBMI, Thomas Cook, FlyBe etc. take note). If an airline fails, passengers would be refunded from the escrow account (less a reasonable admin fee) rather than try to reclaim their ticket costs from their national regulator/CAA or their credit-card companies. The key is to force airlines to be transparent (to the regulator not the public) with the state of their finances. It doesn't need an "extra" levy to be charged, simply for the money "deposited" by customers in advance of their flight to be securely ring-fenced and for the regulators to what they should be good at - REGULATING. They're not experts at cost-effectively spending millions pounds of public money chartering aircraft to repatriate hundreds of thousands of stranded passengers because they failed to regulate properly in the first place.
Brand Ambassador part-time
4 年Completely agree! The other factor to note is ABTA head offices are not obliged to separate clients funds although many do and have ‘client accounts’ this should also be compulsory.