As the trial of Thomas Cook Reps, Richard Carson and Nicola Gibson, continues at Greek pace in Corfu, it is rather unfortunate that at least one major news organisation has changed Richard and Nicola’s job title from Holiday Representative to Health and Safety Inspector, which is a bit like calling a student who has a Saturday job in Clark’s a Podiatrist. It is clear whose side the media are on.

Meanwhile, Sharon Wood, the dead children’s mother said in court:

It was Thomas Cook’s job to check the gas appliances on a regular basis. It’s their responsibility to make sure everything is safe. They should have protected my children.

Wood was clearly briefed by her lawyers to come out with such an emotive statement, yet it does highlight how crazy the law is in relation to tour operators. So Thomas Cook are responsible for the safety in a property they don’t own or run? Strictly speaking, under the EC Package Travel Directive of 1993, the operator is legally responsible for the components of the package.

However, how can an operator be responsible for safety at a property when it has no control over staff employed, maintenance carried out and in most instances is probably not even informed of any reported problems. You could argue that all the above could be covered in the fine detail of contracts, but these are the same contracts that allow operators to counter-claim for any liabilities.

If the EC directive was more specific and more realistic both sides would have less opportunities to abdicate their responsibilities and the consumer would be offered real protection. For example, by decreeing that operators must do a health and safety inspection prior to the holiday being sold and at regular intervals thereafter the consumer would at least know what the operator was doing. The inspection must then be signed by a director and not just a rep or supervisor.

In another worrying development for operators Inghams was found liable in the skidoo case I wrote about here. Both cases could have worrying implications for the industry. If I was a rep again I wouldn’t want anything to do with Health and Safety unless I had far more comprehensive training than anything any operator currently offers. As far as tour operators are concerned, are they only going to sell excursions such as skidoo trips if they can vet all staff, have copies of training manuals and check all the equipment of a third-party supplier. Is that practical?

Usually, the problems Greece is experiencing would be good news for tourists. The next logical step with an economy so far gone would be for the government to devalue its currency and tourists would see real value until inflation kicked in.

Except that can’t happen because Greece is in the Euro. It looks like Greece will receive some sort of bail out from the EU, but there will be a price to pay. With no capacity to set its own monetary policy the pressure is on Greece to reduce its deficit and the only way the Greek government can do this is to raise taxes and attack its workers’ living conditions.

The Telegraph joked that raising taxes is futile because tax-avoidance has long been a Greek national sport. This may be true, but it must be closely followed by striking, an activity where the Greeks make even the French look like amateurs. Today saw many workers,  including taxi drivers, strike across Greece.

Amidst all the current uncertainty, one thing is almost predictable; Greece will plunge even deeper into recession this  summer.  So what effect will this have on tourism? Will there be strikes and civil unrest? From a financial point of view prices could well drop and with reduced domestic demand, hotels will be keener than ever to have UK visitors.

The weakness of the Greek economy and the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) in general will at least serve to keep the Euro comparatively weak against sterling, which will be good news for UK travel companies. They’ll just have to deal with the air-traffic control strikes when they happen!

Photo by jonrawlinson

Tourism bosses in Oxford are reportedly preparing for a rush of visitors who want to follow the Oxford trail of Alice in Wonderland as the new Tim Burton film hits cinema screens.

But will there be a rush of eager visitors, or just a trickle of curious fanatics? One of the problems Oxford faces is that being a Tim Burton film Oxford is unlikely to look much like Oxford and being a Tim Burton film it’s likely to be loved by the critics but watched by relatively few people. Also, I’ve not seen the film yet, but isn’t the whole point that the first couple of minutes Alice is in Oxford but mostly she’s in Wonderland?

While it’s true that resorts can benefit from the bandwagon of publicity a new film brings with it, how many films have made a lasting difference to a resort? I can think of a few resorts where being featured in a film has had a really lasting impact, but in the majority of cases the initial excitement is dampened by a relatively small boost in numbers. So what should a resort look for when they agree to have a visit from a director?

Have an iconic setting – if your location looks like nowhere else, it’s more likely to stick (Portmeiron, The Schilthorn).

Make sure it has a happy ending - a lot of people will see Precious, but it’s not going to make them want to go to New York City.

Make sure it’s a musical – two of the most successful film tie-ins (The Sound of Music and Mama Mia) were musicals. Not only are musicals generally upbeat but they also have theatre productions which keep the film in people’s minds.

If all else fails support everything - if you’re a big city like New York you know that for every grim portrayal such as The Book of Eli there will be a Sex and the City.

The Times this weekend wrote about the tragic case of an Inghams customer who was left paralysed from the chest down after a snowmobile accident on an excursion booked through her Inghams rep. I don’t want to comment on this individual case, rather a couple of the quotes attributed to lawyers in the piece.

Inghams are being sued for £300,000, but Inghams are defending the claim on the basis that they are not liable for excursions sold in resort. That’s the way the law stands. But, according to Paul McClorry, a travel expert with the law firm Pannone:

“Tour operators that employ these methods of selling excursions should not be allowed to continue hiding behind a legal technicality. The law in this area needs to be amended, as it does not provide fair protection to consumers.”

A technicality? It’s the law. It’s no more a technicality than the law that prohibits me from doing more than 70mph on the motorway. It’s funny how when  lawyers don’t like a certain aspect of the law they deem it to be a “technicality“. If you don’t like the law then blame the law, don’t blame the operators who are operating within it and wrongly claim they are “hiding“.

Clive Garner, of the law firm Irwin Mitchell, came up with something equally ridiculous:

“Every year, dozens of people are injured as a result of excursions sold by reps in resorts, and in most cases the law does not allow them to claim. Tour operators routinely receive commission from selling excursions. If they’re profiting, it’s only right that they bear legal responsibility when things go wrong.”

So just because someone is profiting that makes them liable? If I go into a travel agent and book a flight that subsequently crashes due to a pilot error, is that the liability of the airline who recruited and trained the pilot, or the travel agent who sold the ticket? In Mr Garner’s world we should blame the travel agent.

Obviously, it’s a tricky one because different countries are involved and trying to prosecute in a foreign country is a complex business. However, tour operators are held responsible for enough things they have little controls or jurisdiction over, such as the hygiene and safety in the hotels they sell. Adding excursions to this would be a step too far.

If this ruling, or a similar one being taken out against First Choice, go against the operator it will have severe implications for the industry. It would push operators’ insurance up and make it very difficult for companies to sell excursions. It should be the responsibility of whoever is taking the excursion to ensure the safety of their clients, not the operator.

If the law was changed so those liable were the people selling the trips, rather than those running them, would that really benefit the consumer? It would just mean that the people who were really vital to your safety were abdicated of responsibility.

Are BAA the EMI or Manchester United of the travel world? Bought at an inflated price using bundles of debt by Grupo Ferrovial, they find themselves desperately looking for some kind of return on their investment.

Last week BAA announced a deal with US firm Boingo to provide wi-fi access in its 6 UK airports. Boingo already operates wi-fi services in US airports where it has received criticisim for its high prices and for the amount of spam it leaves on user’s laptops.

In the UK the current BAA/Boingo charges are as follows: £3.95 an hour, £5.95 a day and £34 a month (2,000 minutes) for wi-fi access at BAA airports but is exploring alternate price plans. Seems quite expensive to me.

But isn’t it all a bit late? With the ubiquity of smartphones, how many people with an iphone or similar are going to pay to log-on with their laptop for twenty minutes? Also, with more and more airlines introducing wi-fi, would you rather pay for wi-fi for an hour at the airport or for your twenty-three hour flight to Australia?

It reminds me of the brief time when analysts recommended buying shares in companies selling ringtones, only to find that new phones allowed users to add their own mp3 ringtones free of charge.

I don’t think it will be too far in the future that all airports will offer free wi-fi, simply because that will be the way of the world. In the meantime BAA might make a little bit of money from providing extortionately priced wi-fi, but it won’t be enough to pay off their debts. I guess we’ll have to wait for their next idea for fleecing their passengers.

Yesterday saw the start of the trial of Thomas Cook reps Richard Carson and Nicola Gibson on manslaughter charges over the deaths of Bobby Shepherd, six, and his sister Christi, seven, who were found dead in a hotel in Gouves in 2006.

I wrote last year about what I think of these two innocent people being tried and let’s just hope sanity prevails and they are not found guilty. Having kept a close eye on the mainstream press so far, I am slightly disappointed by the lack of involvement by any UK politicians. Richard and Nicola are being used as scapegoats by the Greeks and I’d like to think if any of my family was tried in a foreign country for a crime they didn’t commit that their MP would be a little more vociferous in their support.

I’ve said before that the Package Travel Directive is misguided in making operators responsibile for the safety in the properties they sell. But, if that is the case it should be somebody in a more senior position from Thomas Cook standing trial, not Richard and Nicola.

If you wish to show your support for Richard and Nicola, please join this Facebook group. Also, Rupert Murray is providing excellent coverage of the trial in the TTG.

Thomson are the first major operator in the UK to openly chase the pink pound with their new offering called Freedom. Given the size of the gay market it’s surprising that it has taken the major players so long to come up with something.

Thomson have decided to work on Freedom in-house, rather than buy one of the existing gay specialists on the market. They’ve worked closely with Out Now Consulting who have developed the GayComfort programme.

The logo has the reversed e and you do wonder whether Thomson came up with that all by themselves, or simply copied someone else’s logo. As a website, it’s neatly done and clearly designed to sit readily next to Thomson’s existing portfolio of products, providing high-street agents another option.

There’s no confusing what the product is with Thomson Freedom; the word gay features no less than sixty five times on the landing page. However, there is a clear contrast with how Thomson are approaching this market with the more overt marketing of the current market leaders.

Most of the other operators’ sites have screens filled with young men showing off ridiculously honed torsos. The emphasis with the Thomson site centres a lot more around the accommodation on offer rather than any extra-curricular activities.

Whereas Thomson’s competitors have websites that are predominantly male orientated, Thomson try to give equal importance to the smaller lesbian market, despite the majority of its properties being for the male market.

The only non-property image Thomson features on its site is a tasteful shot of two girls in conversation. Does this mean that Thomson are playing it fairly safe with Freedom in the knowledge that they have an existing market of Thomson customers? It will be interesting to see how Freedom develops over time.

Travel firms do it. The travel media does it. But is it right to recommend destinations based on very crude economics?

Last year saw an increase in the number of British travellers to destinations such as Turkey and Egypt. This was partly due to an effort by groups with a vested interest (i.e. companies that sell holidays to Turkey and Egypt) to convince people that these destinations offered much better value than countries with the Euro as its currency.

Trying to sell holidays or destinations based solely on exchange rates is simplistic and can even be misleading. The rate of inflation in Turkey was 6.5% in December yet only 0.9% in France for the same period, having been negative for most of last year. However, you won’t hear travel firms telling people that prices are rising much more quickly in Turkey than in Europe.

Should holiday firms encourage people to visit certain destinations based on misleading figures? You wouldn’t go into your local bank to ask for travel advice so why take financial advice from a travel firm? Unfortunately it is something many travel firms are keen on doing. They also like to manipulate the data to provide an even more distorted picture by choosing a day when the disparity between two currencies is at its greatest as their point of reference.

Visit Britain is currently very happy to tell the world what great value Britain is due to the weakness of the pound. Yet one of the side effects of the weak pound and quantitative easing will almost inevitably be rising inflation. With the fragile economy giving little scope for interest rate rises it is likely that prices will be rising here at a greater rate than in mainland Europe. Will Visit Britain be telling everyone?

photo by kiki99

Twenty years ago on a two hour flight from London to Palma cabin crew would have to do a safety demonstration, serve a full meal followed by drinks and then sell duty-free (at a time when people actually bought duty-free on planes).

Now, the safety demo is often on video and the in-flight service on short-haul flights is very minimal. So it’s not really a huge surprise that British Airways are considering the use of strike-breaking cabin crew should BA staff vote in favour of strike action.

I’m not particularly knocking cabin crew, but the role has changed a lot in recent years and with that change has come a change in the attitude of cabin crew. As the primary function of the role has shifted from service to control and stewardship, so has the behaviour of cabin crew.

In my last post, I wrote about the plight of Mirko Fischer who had a BA Steward raise his voice at him when he objected to being asked to move seat. I’m probably not the only person who flies regularly who has seen this happen. If there is a dispute or dissatisfaction voiced it appears to be common practice now for cabin crew to raise their voice and generally make a scene. I don’t know why they do this; is it just to assert their authority or to imply that anyone who causes a problem is a threat to security?

I have also witnessed a very patronising tone be employed towards passengers. On a recent EasyJet flight a couple who were late boarding were greeted on board by EasyJet staff like a couple of errant five year-olds. As air travel has become cheaper and more accessible to everyone the politeness and respect of cabin crew seems to be disappearing.

So what does the union have to say about strike-breakers being used?

“Well-managed airlines embrace their cabin crew as a key element in their marketing and commercial success. Trying to grind skilled and professional employees and their organisation into the dirt is a short hop to catastrophe for BA”

Suddenly they care about the fate of BA.

photo by Giorgio Montersino

There are plenty of tough jobs in travel, but does it come any tougher than working for the PR department at British Airways? The constant stream of bad news that is associated with the world’s former favourite airline makes you wonder whether BA’s PR team has given up and thrown in the towel.

This weekend it emerged that BA passenger Mirko Fischer is taking BA to court after he was asked to move seat on a BA flight, having committed the crime of sitting next to a 12 year-old boy. It is BA policy for cabin crew to walk down the plane prior to take off and to check that there aren’t any men who aren’t family members sitting next to children.

Mr Fischer is not taking BA to court because he wants money, but simply because he resented being treated like a criminal and feels the policy is wrong. Any compensation he receives will be donated to the NSPCC.

Although it appears to have been in place for quite some time, it almost goes without saying that the policy is ridiculous. Probably dreamt up by someone in BA management with a very loose association with the real world, it is indicative of the way BA treats its customers. Only in the UK are all men treated as potential paedophiles, yet if this is the way BA wishes to see treat its customers then surely they could do it in a less demeaning fashion?

It appears Mr Fischer may have swapped the seat he was allocated with his pregnant wife who wished to sit next to the window. But it comes as no surprise that the BA steward allegedly raised his voice at Mr Fischer and claimed that the plane could not take off until he moved seat. If BA must have such an absurd policy, why not just move the boy instead?

Finally, what are BA doing allowing this case to come to court? You would have thought they had enough problems without creating even more for themselves. Without being a legal expert you have to assume that BA will do very well to prove that this policy is not unreasonably discriminatory.

In the world of common sense, a sincere apology, a sizeable donation to a children’s charity and a promise to review the policy would have been sufficient. Unfortunately, BA seem to be operating in a different world entirely.