Consumers are in particular need of protection when they are travelling, which was the reason for the adoption of the package travel directive in 1990. The travel market has, however, changed significantly since then. The development of online sales and liberalisation in the airline sector have changed the way in which consumers organise their holidays. Consumers are increasingly taking a more active role in tailoring their holidays to their specific requirements, notably by using the internet to combine travel arrangements rather than choosing from ready-made packages.
I welcome the commission’s proposal to clarify and modernise the scope of travellers’ protection when purchasing combinations of travel services for the same trip or holiday by bringing in particular online packages and linked travel arrangements within the scope of the revised directive. This will lead to increased transparency for all market players.
"As the market evolves far quicker than legislation, it is necessary to define which combinations of travel services – offline or online – will be covered by the scope of the directive"
As rapporteur for the parliament’s transport and tourism committee opinion, I had three key objectives in mind when working on the legislative text. First, ensuring a more competitive and fairer level playing field for the businesses operating in the travel market. Second, guaranteeing that all consumers benefit from a high level of protection when purchasing a combination of travel services, irrespective of the distribution channel, while ensuring that compliance costs will be reasonable for the new players falling under the revised scope of the directive. And finally, making sure that travellers are better informed about the travel products they are buying and are granted access to clearer and more effective remedies if something goes wrong. To that end, I proposed amendments to the report aimed at strengthening the objectives of the commission proposal.
As the market evolves far quicker than legislation, it is necessary to define which combinations of travel services – offline or online – will be covered by the scope of the directive. I believe that broadening the definition of ‘package’ is necessary and this should cover most of the combinations of travel services sold to consumers. However, the value of ‘linked travel arrangements’ should be recognised as a solution to make the directive future-proof and provide an appropriate level of protection for the consumer in case of insolvency of one of the service providers.
In order to ensure fair competition and to protect consumers, the current obligation for organisers of packages to provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of pre-payments and the repatriation of travellers in the event of insolvency should also apply to linked travel arrangements. It should also be emphasised that the carrier plays a key role in ensuring the effective running of a travel package. I therefore proposed the extension of protection against insolvency to passenger carriers.
Given the fragmentation of the legislation in the field of traveller protection, as well as the rapid development of the travel and tourism market always evolving ahead of legislation, I consider that the appropriate way forward for the future would be to reflect on a comprehensive instrument in the field of traveller rights. Consumers are increasingly departing from the idea of package tours. Hence, the chosen concept of package and linked travel arrangements only covers part of the common practice. A single instrument on travel services would be all the more important since most of the consumer protection directives expressly exclude the transport sector from the scope of their application.