Recent disruption to flights linked to the Middle East conflict has renewed debate about passenger rights, with a new IATA survey suggesting that most travellers would rather be rerouted than refunded.
The survey found that three-quarters of recent air travellers had experienced a disruption due to the conflict. When asked to rank their priorities, passengers placed greater value on being offered alternative travel arrangements than receiving refunds or compensation.
However, travel agents say the reality is often more complicated. Strict airline policies, limited availability and lengthy refund processes can leave agents balancing client expectations with significant operational and financial challenges.
Re-accommodation reality
While passengers may prefer to be rerouted during disruptions, agents say stringent airline policies and reluctance to re-accommodate travellers on competing carriers often create challenges for both agents and their clients.
“Qatar and Emirates, in my opinion, made it difficult to re-accommodate people on other airlines, unless passengers were doing it very close to or prior to departure. But for many, that was not an option,” Angela McLoskey, Managing Director of Sure Dynamic Travel, told Travel News.
She explained that this was particularly difficult to manage for travellers booked on a cruise or with date-specific arrangements, as they could not wait the 48 or 72 hours to be reaccommodated or they would risk missing their commitment.
“While they were very happy to accommodate you on their own airline on another flight, there were virtually no flights operating and there was resistance from customers, because they didn't want to go on Emirates or Qatar flights. So, first prize would have been for them to be re-accommodated on another airline. We did a lot of refunding and selling on another airline,” said McLoskey.
She said some Middle Eastern carriers had become increasingly reluctant to reaccommodate passengers on other airlines as the disruptions continued, because of the cost involved.
“For example, they were having to re-accommodate a R15 000 fare with a R25 000 fare, in some instances. So, financially, it just didn't make good business sense for the airlines.”
Refunding disrupts cashflow
When re-accommodation did not work, refunds become the default, but they presented a whole new set of headaches for both clients and agencies’ cash flow.
“In many cases, when a client requests a refund, they understandably expect all costs, including the service fee, to be refunded. However, by that stage, the professional services associated with researching, planning, arranging and managing the booking have already been completed,” said Karin Livingstone, Gold Travel Counsellor.
“When a client receives a refund from an airline, they are not always aware that airlines do not compensate travel agents for the time and work already invested in the booking. As a result, our service fees are charged separately and are generally non-refundable.”
For this reason, Livingstone said she still preferred re-accommodation, rather than processing a full cancellation and refund.
However, refunding posed challenge to the client’s cashflow as well, noted McLoskey.
“Sometimes, if clients paid by credit card, they may not have funds, while they wait for the refund to be processed, to spend on the reissued ticket,” she pointed out. “This would sometimes leave us having to bankroll this.”
