Continued from page 56
of aviation fuel to be SAF by 2030, and the UK is pledged to a SAF mandate of 10% by 2030. Finch noted: “The SAF
mandates fall on fuel suppliers which have to deliver these percentages regardless of what the airlines do.” He also hit out at global
aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS) Corsia, set up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, calling it “rubbish”. Finch argued: “Global
carbon pricing is a good idea. [But] Corsia only covers growth in emissions above 85% of the 2019 level, so it only tackles the future problem, not the existing one. Not all countries are in the scheme [Russia, China and India are outside] and it only runs till 2035. But the biggest issue is the credits. The costs are way lower than the EU and UK ETSs. The Corsia carbon price is about £1 a tonne versus £50-£100 in Europe. It’s absolutely pointless.” He also noted: “The
UK and EU schemes only apply in Europe, so 70% of aviation emissions are not in an ETS scheme at all.” Finch welcomed recent
Advertising Standards Authority rulings against Air France, Lufthansa and Etihad over misleading environmental claims (Travel Weekly, December 14), saying: “We’ve said for ages these sustainability claims don’t add up.” But he argued: “Airlines
may tighten their language, but nothing has changed. Airlines are buying new more-efficient aircraft but flying more. Industry emissions are going up.”
AAC opposes exclusion of cheap trips from PTRs
Ian Taylor
The Association of Atol Companies (AAC) has come out firmly against excluding low-cost holidays from the Package Travel Regulations (PTRs) but failed to take a position on the removal of domestic packages. Both of these proposals
were included in a Department for Business and Trade (DBT) Call for Evidence on reform of the PTRs issued in September, which closed on December 13. The AAC noted in its response
to the Call for Evidence that excluding low-cost holidays “makes no sense at all” and warned it could lead to “a rise in scammers”. It argued: “The theory appears
to be that reducing regulatory constraints might lead to reduced costs to organisers and therefore cheaper holidays. We see no likelihood of this happening. The reality is likely to be a rise in scammers offering holidays with
Association says existing protection options ‘adequate’
The AAC has also come out strongly against changes to Atol holders’ financial protection options and to allowing use of overseas insurers, as proposed by the Department for Business and Trade in its Call for Evidence on PTRs reform. In its response to the proposals, the AAC noted: “There are three
54 4 JANUARY 2024 Alan Bowen
no protection and those least likely to be able to stand a loss being put at the greatest risk.” The association told the DBT:
“It makes a complete nonsense of the regulations, and we oppose the idea completely.” AAC secretary Alan Bowen dismissed the proposal as “hare-brained”. However, the AAC was unable to
come to an agreed position on the proposal to remove domestic package holidays from the PTRs, despite noting: “Domestic holidays can be as expensive as many overseas holidays.” Its members “were split equally
main options to provide financial protection: bonding through an approved body, insurance against failure, and use of a trust account with backup protection from an insurance policy. “The suggestion that
further options could include a trust account with a bond as a top-up appears to be making things even more complicated than they are already. “We asked members if they saw
any need for additional options: 67% of respondents said they believed the current options were sufficient. “We believe the current options
between those who thought they [domestic packages] should be outside the protection of the PTRs and those who considered they were as important to their customers as overseas holidays and should continue to enjoy protection”. The AAC noted 44% of the
members that responded to its survey on the proposals sold domestic holidays, “a much higher figure than we anticipated”. The association told the DBT:
“We look forward to the end of Linked Travel Arrangements and the confusion that surrounds them.” It said it would support a review
of the information provided to consumers at the point of sale and would “strongly urge” a substantial reduction in this information, suggesting: “The current requirements are almost certainly not being met by a substantial part of the industry.” The AAC represents members
with a combined turnover of more than £6 billion a year.
for financial protection should be more than adequate without adding confusion, which is likely to lead to some businesses not providing the level of cover required.” The AAC added “we strongly
oppose” the use of foreign insurers to provide protection to consumers travelling with companies using trust accounts. It said: “Only a company that is FCA-regulated and registered at Companies House can be checked adequately by the travel industry and its regulators.” The Financial Conduct
Authority (FCA) is the UK financial services regulator.
travelweekly.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
