The Department for Transport confirmed plans to pass on the bill for repatriating non-Atol protected passengers – the majority of those affected by Monarch’s collapse – after launching a rescue operation when the carrier failed in October.
A DfT spokesperson confirmed to TTG this week: “The government launched the biggest ever peacetime repatriation to bring back almost 85,000 people. Work is ongoing with the travel operators and card companies to help recover costs.”
It is believed no bills have yet been sent out, but the threat has angered many Atol-holders, who argue they should not have to cover the collapse of a scheduled airline. Operators and agents are also critical of the DfT for hiring a fleet of expensive foreign aircraft without calling on the industry to help explore cheaper options. As a result, the DfT plans to levy £250 per repatriated passenger – in most cases far above market rates. However, experts told TTG the absence of completed paperwork from repatriated passengers meant that clawing back the money could be difficult.
Alan Bowen, legal advisor to the Association of Atol Companies, agreed there was a fundamental flaw in the plan because many passengers had not returned the DfT’s forms. “People were given forms but not required to give them back before they got off the plane. The vast majority will have thought, ‘well, I’m home now and they might ask me for the money’.
“I think the DfT might be on a hiding to nothing – the CAA has said it does not have the resources to help.” Bowen added that the taxpayer would probably be “left holding the can”.
Another expert said the industry may also give the DfT short shrift: “My reaction if sent a bill would be that the DfT did this unilaterally and the industry had no option. Once it was announced on TV that the government would bring everyone home, it became impossible for companies to sell customers alternative arrangements – the CAA said they were bringing them home.”
An Abta spokesperson added: “We are aware that the DfT has contacted credit card companies of customers who would have otherwise been left without return flight arrangements in order to recoup costs, and has also raised the question of cost contributions with some Atol holders which used Monarch Airlines.”
