Recent comments from Emirates president Sir Tim Clark featured in the Financial Times outline the airline's confidence in continuing operations through the Middle East and its commitment to supporting passengers during disruption. They have promptly reignited an important debate for the travel industry.
The issue is not whether safety should come first. It absolutely should.
The challenge is travellers are increasingly receiving conflicting messages from different parts of the travel ecosystem, leaving them uncertain about the risks they face and confused about who carries responsibility when disruption occurs.
'Growing disconnect' between travel advice and reality
On one hand, the Foreign Office (FCDO) advises against travel to certain destinations and transit routes in the region. Such advice has significant implications. It can invalidate travel insurance, influence booking decisions and create uncertainty for consumers planning their journeys.
On the other hand, airlines such as Emirates continue to operate extensive schedules through major hubs including Dubai, maintaining that they can do so safely and offering assurances that they can support customers and get them home should circumstances change.
Adding further complexity to the debate, Intrepid Travel chief executive James Thornton recently shared his experience of transiting through Dubai, describing the process as "utterly seamless". He noted that flights were full, airport operations were normal and the overall travel experience appeared unaffected by the concerns reflected in official government advice.
His comments echo those being made in Australia, where the Australian Travel Industry Association (ATIA), led by chief executive Dean Long, has been campaigning for a review of travel advice relating to transit through major Middle Eastern hubs. ATIA argues that current warnings are creating unintended consequences for travellers, including the loss of insurance cover, increased travel costs and reduced consumer confidence, despite airports such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha continuing to function as critical global aviation gateways.
Taken together, these developments expose a growing disconnect between official travel advice, operational reality and consumer experience.
'There's a flaw in the system'
In light of current developments, it is encouraging that a deal appears to have been reached between Iran and the United States, and hopefully this will lead to a review of FCDO advice in the near future. However, the situation the industry has been grappling with in recent months has highlighted a flaw in the system.
To travellers, the messages can appear contradictory. Government advice effectively says "do not travel", airlines say "we can operate safely", and fellow travellers report largely normal experiences. While each perspective may be valid in its own context, the lack of alignment creates confusion.
For travel organisers, the situation is even more challenging.
Under the Package Travel Regulations (PTRs), tour operators carry extensive obligations to customers. They must assess risks, provide assistance during disruption and, in many cases, absorb significant financial liabilities when circumstances change. As a result, even when airlines continue operating and customers are willing to travel, operators and travel agents must make decisions within a framework heavily influenced by government advice and insurance restrictions. Some are comfortable in taking the booking, whilst others aren't.
Is the FCDO's approach good enough?
It's not only about the risk of being stranded. It's about what happens when something occurs on the ground, who carries the responsibility then?
This is where the real issue lies. As geopolitical instability becomes a more frequent feature of the global landscape, the industry needs a clearer and more nuanced framework for managing risk.
No one is suggesting that travel warnings should be weakened. The FCDO and other government agencies play a vital role in protecting travellers. However, there is a legitimate question about whether today's approach provides enough distinction between travelling to a destination and transiting through a major international hub that remains operational.
The travel industry, insurers, airlines and governments all share the same objective: protecting consumers. Achieving that objective requires clarity, consistency and regulation that reflects the realities of modern travel. Until then, consumers will continue to receive mixed messages, and travel organisers will remain caught between operational confidence, government advice and the legal responsibilities they are expected to shoulder.
