Thomas Cook.......

[oilmagnet477 747]

Can any one explain the logic of the Govt not coming to the rescue here?

I appreciate that TC's problems are many and varied but on the face of it, I have little doubt that Brexit uncertainty (rather than us leaving the UK period) can probably be blamed for contributing to making a bad situation worse. In this case, a very large finger has to be pointed to all Politicians (not just the Govt).

It seems daft to me that the Govt could (and it appears are happy to) fork out £600m to get everyone home but that would still result in the demise of TC and the loss of 000s of jobs, with no chance of getting any of that £600m back.

Why not take a large stake and help it survive (and face up to the fact that this is what Brexit uncertainty has cost in this case).

Maybe if it were the Thomas Cook Bank, the deal would already have been done.......?

[100th_Idiot 328]

Of course. Let's have the government rescue every failing business. The magic money tree can cope.

[red vtec 147]

Well they did the banks, but are quite happy for infrastructure such as ship building and steel to go to the wall. 

[oilmagnet477 747]

Andy, I'd normally agree 100% - except that economically it makes better sense to spend £200m (with the hope of seeing a ROI) than spending £600m to bring people home with ZERO gain.

If all holiday makers are covered by ATOL insurance then why the need for the Govt to spend £600m to bring people home in the first place - maybe that is what the question should be?

My point was simply about economics - but then, Govt's are never very good at that....

[pete 1,629]

Can't see where the 600 million comes from,that comes to  nearly £4000 for every holiday maker.

[RichardC 123]

If the government did step in then it wouldn't be the first time that we've had a nationalised travel agent: Thomas Cook was a state-owned company from 1948 to 1972.

[C8RKH 5,807]

1 hour ago, red vtec said:

Well they did the banks, but are quite happy for infrastructure such as ship building and steel to go to the wall. 

The banks was a different issue.

My view is simple, the Government steps in, if and when required, to bring people home. The government then claims the cost of doing so back from the insurance companies of those that have insurance. That way it is the insurance companies who pay, not the taxpayer.

Those that did not have insurance should be required to pay a fee back to the Government for their repatriation, say £150 per person, to limit the cost to taxpayers. Any shortfall should then be taken from the liquidation of the assets, or the sale of,  the company prior to any Directors or shareholders getting anything returned to them including Directors pay and bonuses from the day the Government needed to step in..

I don't see why taxpayers should pay for this at all.

Thanks.

[pete 1,629]

17 minutes ago, RichardC said:

If the government did step in then it wouldn't be the first time that we've had a nationalised travel agent: Thomas Cook was a state-owned company from 1948 to 1972.

200 million won't make the government own them. It is only part of a 1.1BILLION pound rescue

[KennyN 197]

Other than saving the livelihoods of those employed by Thomas Cook, why should the Government step in?  When Thomas Cook were sitting pretty counting their profits in previous years and paying those at the top nice fat salaries did they give a second thought to the potential of tough times ahead?

Isn't ATOL supposed to be the knight in shining armour in such cases, or is that just another ruse to charge more and make you feel warm and fuzzy whilst handing over your hard earned?

I realise that above is all questions and no answers, but I fail to see why us taxpayers should foot the bill for what appears to be yet another case of poor strategy and lack of direction from those at the top.  Regardless of where anyone sits on the topic of Brexit, I expect that Thomas Cook will be one of many that will conveniently blame Brexit for their demise.  Sure, the internet is also a factor, as consumers have become more savvy they organise their own holidays, but that's the world we live in, it's a case of keep up or die in business.

[red vtec 147]

Being one of those affected, we flew with Thomas Cook, a flight only is not ATOL protected, only full packages  are. We have travel insurance ( aviva) but on reading the small print, it's not covered.  Therefore we will probably have to pay our own way back home. 

When the times were good thomas cook were paying their taxes, and so were their employees. Instead we may well see thousands out of work and claiming.

its a difficult one. 

[Dan E 1,428]

I have a mate that owns four travel agencies around here and does very nicely, they are slightly more expensive but they do go the extra mile I use him for all business and personal travel as they do all the hard work. I haven’t been in a Thomas Cook for 20 years and I would just go on the internet but I like the personal service 

[C8RKH 5,807]

13 minutes ago, KennyN said:

Sure, the internet is also a factor, as consumers have become more savvy they organise their own holidays

Oh yes, of course they are savvy. Then whinge like fook when it all unravels and their low cost airline doesn't get them there, or home, or when their hotel goes bust etc etc. You bloody read it all the time and stoopid fookers rarely if ever think about insurance. It's all done on the cheap then they expect someone else to pick up the pieces.

No excuses for Thomas Cook and in my opinion sod all to do with Brexit. Just a piss poor exec team, poor strategy, and poor execution. As always though its the staff and customers who will feel the pain.

[C8RKH 5,807]

5 minutes ago, red vtec said:

Being one of those affected, we flew with Thomas Cook, a flight only is not ATOL protected, only full packages  are. We have travel insurance ( aviva) but on reading the small print, it's not covered.  Therefore we will probably have to pay our own way back home. 

When the times were good thomas cook were paying their taxes, and so were their employees. Instead we may well see thousands out of work and claiming.

its a difficult one. 

If you booked your flight only portion through an ATOL travel agent then you should be covered. It may have cost you slightly more than booking direct, but then, you pay for the extra cover/service.

If you booked direct with Thomas Cook, but used your credit card as the flights were more than £100, then you should be covered by Section 75 of the Consumer Credit act.  If you paid with e debit card, then you may be protected by the chargeback scheme. So all may well not be lost!

[red vtec 147]

Just now, C8RKH said:

If you booked your flight only portion through an ATOL travel agent then you should be covered. It may have cost you slightly more than booking direct, but then, you pay for the extra cover/service.

If you booked direct with Thomas Cook, but used your credit card as the flights were more than £100, then you should be covered by Section 75 of the Consumer Credit act.  If you paid with e debit card, then you may be protected by the chargeback scheme. So all may well not be lost!

Yep we booked on credit card, so hopefully. W e booked direct, was going go BA but didn't due to strikes! 

[Barrykearley 6,442]

This is simple to solve - just ask Jeremy Corbyn what he would do and then do the exact opposite 

[KennyN 197]

22 minutes ago, C8RKH said:

Oh yes, of course they are savvy. Then whinge like fook when it all unravels and their low cost airline doesn't get them there, or home, or when their hotel goes bust etc etc. You bloody read it all the time and stoopid fookers rarely if ever think about insurance. It's all done on the cheap then they expect someone else to pick up the pieces.

True, but for that section of the community walking upright is a recent development in their evolutionary path.  They should be left to fend for themselves wherever their government handout managed to take them, it would lessen the drain on resources here.

By savvy I meant seasoned travellers who actually understand the benefits of paying more with a decent airline and having adequate insurance to cover the eventualities should the worst happen.

[100th_Idiot 328]

3 hours ago, oilmagnet477 said:

Andy, I'd normally agree 100% - except that economically it makes better sense to spend £200m (with the hope of seeing a ROI) than spending £600m to bring people home with ZERO gain.

If all holiday makers are covered by ATOL insurance then why the need for the Govt to spend £600m to bring people home in the first place - maybe that is what the question should be?

My point was simply about economics - but then, Govt's are never very good at that....

But they have been sick for a long time so I doubt the ROI will be there. Hence why they cannot raise private finance.

[KennyN 197]

42 minutes ago, red vtec said:

When the times were good thomas cook were paying their taxes, and so were their employees. Instead we may well see thousands out of work and claiming.

I agree and I feel for those who have been subjected to poor leadership and direction from those at the top of the business.  My concern is that if the government throw whatever it takes to re-float the ship now then it's just shoring up a flawed business model that will ultimately fail if the profit margins no longer exist to make such a company viable.  The money would be put to better use retraining those impacted, or helping them find new roles in the travel industry.

[LotusLeftLotusRight 1,095]

I read the other day that something like 75% of TC’s holidaymakers are from non UK countries. Who will pay to fly them home if the airline fleet is grounded tonight? That’s another reason why the UK tax payer shouldn’t be helping to bale them out.

edit: just found the data on BBC news website. TC currently have 600,000 customers on holiday, of which 150,000 to 160,000 are from the UK. So that’s 440,000 to 450,000 potentially stranded from other countries. The numbers are mind boggling!

Edited September 22, 2019 by LotusLeftLotusRight

[Barrykearley 6,442]

Looks like a bail out has been agreed.

[100th_Idiot 328]

I can only see that gummint has agreed to fly holidaymakers home if TC goes bankrupt. They will presumably claim back off the insurance.

[Barrykearley 6,442]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/thomas-cook-saved-after-450million-19019250

[100th_Idiot 328]

2 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/thomas-cook-saved-after-450million-19019250

Thanks. Private money then.

[Barrykearley 6,442]

Yup - by the folks whom have been looking and watching TC for a long time. There’s probably little doubt some of those in the business have been writing down asset values to make the position better for any potential takeover 

[100th_Idiot 328]

No doubt.