International Travel Law Network conference: Package travel reform, and Continued from page 56


at 8pm, before opening fully the next day. Kelly noted: “There may have


been opportunities to open parts of the airport slightly sooner, but for limited operations only, [and] likely only by a maximum of a couple of hours . . . The vast majority of flight cancellations would still have occurred.” Heathrow engineers had


initially reconfigured systems to run off an alternative power supply, then tried to switch back after being told they could do so before assessing late on March 21 that the supply was not resilient and switching back again. The review noted: “It was


known within Heathrow that loss of power from one intake would result in a suspension of operations for a significant period while the internal network was reconfigured. This is a result of the way the infrastructure at the airport has been developed over 75 years. There is no immediate fix to this.” The Kelly Review was


commissioned by Heathrow alongside an investigation by the National Energy System Operator (Neso) ordered by transport secretary Ed Miliband. Neso published an interim


report on May 8, noting two transformers at the substation remain out of service and the cause of the fire “remains unknown”. A final report, expected by


the end of June, is unlikely to shed more light on Heathrow’s closure as it will focus on “findings and recommendations relating to the resilience of energy infrastructure [and] resilience of critical national infrastructure to energy disruption.”


Proposals to reform PTD alarm lawyers in Europe


Travel lawyers in Europe have expressed alarm at the extent of revisions proposed to the EU Package Travel Directive (PTD), which appears set to diverge significantly from UK package rules if EC and European Parliamentary proposals remain unchanged. Klara Dvorakova, managing


partner at Prague law firm Holubova, noted the EC’s intention to “change the definition of a package to make it clearer, cut the definition of Linked Travel Arrangements, cap prepayments, broaden the cancellation rights of consumers, and propose suppliers refund organisers within seven days”. Dvorakova, head of an


International Forum of Travel & Tourism Advocates (IFTTA) working group on PTD reform, reported: “The proposals [from late 2023] went to the EU Council, representing member states, and its view much more reflects what the market wants.” But then the rapporteur of the


European Parliament, Alex Agius Saliba, went “further than the


EU and UK seek to clarify operators’ right to redress


Package organisers’ rights to redress when suppliers are responsible for cancelled holidays were clarified in the UK by the High Court ruling in favour of On the Beach against Ryanair in October 2023. Now both the UK government,


in reform of the Package Travel Regulations, and the EU, in reform


54 5 JUNE 2025


organiser culpability, much higher rates of cancellation repayments and increased financial strain.” He argued: “‘Extraordinary


Klara Dvorakova


Commission, proposing a 25% cap on prepayments combined with escrow, and cancellation rights in the event of extraordinary circumstances between a traveller’s home and the start of the package”. Dvorakova noted there have been


“more than 400 amendments” to Saliba’s proposals which have yet to be agreed by the Parliament, saying: “There is a fight on every topic.” The proposals must be finalised


by trilogue discussions between the EC, Council and Parliament. Klaus Siebert, partner at


Dusseldorf law firm Engels-Siebert, warned: “We’ll have increased


of the PTD, are considering clarifications of this right. Stephen Mason, senior


counsel at Travlaw, noted the High Court ruling “provides a definite right of redress that is binding on courts in the UK”. But he noted the focus has been


“purely on the airline refunding the price of the flight or a hotel the price of accommodation” and said: “Why only a refund of the flight or hotel when the operator has to refund the whole package? I’ve never understood why that is not considered.” Abta senior solicitor Paula


Macfarlane said: “I can’t imagine airlines would ever agree to that.” Dutch lawyer Peter Vos, managing


director of TiceCo Legal Services, suggested the PTD proposal on ‘redress’ “is not enforceable”.


travelweekly.co.uk


circumstances’ has always had to be at the place of destination. Broadening it to the place of departure and even to the consumer’s place of residence is not balanced. It puts a hell of a risk on the financial structure of tour operators. If we push only the level of consumer protection, package travel will probably be dead in two years.” Michael Wukoschitz, partner


at law firm Kornfeld Wukoschitz Cernochova in Vienna, agreed the proposal to extend ‘extraordinary circumstances’ to the traveller’s place of residence “is an unfair shift of responsibility to the organiser”. He said some travellers cancelled


trips during flooding in Austria last September, saying they “were unable to get from home to the airport”. But a court found it was the place of departure which mattered, ruling: “If the airport is not affected, it’s not extraordinary circumstances.”


Peter Vos


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