We've got some flights booked for Christmas with Thomas Cook and with today's news, they're not looking the most secure bet at the minute. I paid for them on a 0% Virgin credit card and haven't paid it off yet, I've got the money in the bank ready to pay which I was planning on doing in the next week or two. If I'm right Virgin will cover the cost of our flights if Thomas Cook do go bust under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, however I've never had to claim through that before so worried that I'll never see the money again. Would I be better paying the bill off as I planned to do, hope Thomas Cook don't go bust, and if they do claim back from Virgin? Or should I hold off and keep hold of my money for the time being? I've still got a couple of months left at 0% but I don't know if Virgin would want their money if Thomas Cook went between now and then? Any help would be useful.
Anything paid on credit card is covered. Also Thomas Cook are members of ABTA, so you should be fine. Clearing your card bill has nothing to do with your cover.
If they go under you claim under the ATOL scheme see this link https://www.caa.co.uk/atol-protection/
My cousin's wife works for them in Meadowhall and has told me not to worry, we have an holiday booked to turkey next year and paying by direct debit.
Fairly sure they will raise the finance. The collapse of the pound will have hit them badly. Holidays are covered on card and by ABTA anyway. Long live Brexit.
ATOL covers package holidays. Flights booked directly with airlines are not usually protected under the ATOL scheme. That’s why you should always book flights on a credit card.
If I understand you correctly you have paid for the flights with your credit card - so the flights are paid for You now owe the credit card money as they loaned you the money for the flights. I would suggest paying them just as you would under normal circumstances - if Thomas cook do go bust you will get your money back either from ABTA or the credit card. That said if you really are paying 0% interest no reason not to pay the minimum amount if you like - as long as you are sure you dont fall into a chargeable area
Well they have gone bust and we’ve not paid the flights off yet so will find out when I ring them up. Gunna cost us a fortune this I can see it now, new flights at Christmas 3 months in advance when a major airline has gone bust.
My heart goes out to the many people stuck in holiday paradise, helpless apart from the daily grind of drinking beer and stopping the sun rays.
Just been on TV, Repatriation flights have started today so any anyone that’s already on holiday are advised to continue with their holiday and they will be returned on their original date of return. ( albeit a few hours late)They need to check the website 3 days before their departure date.
Not really - In any case in a few weeks they would need another bailout - at least that was the conclusion of those making the decision and with the limited information available its hard to disagree with them on that.
Bit heartless I dont think I would enjoy my holiday so much if I was worried about getting back. Lots of others will now have to find replacement holidays almost certainly at greater cost but the real victims are the employees who are suddenly now out of work. Surprised that the company went straight into liquidation and not administration though - I believe the airline part of the business was profitable so I would have thought selling that off as a going concern would have been something for an administrator to consider . Dont know if that is still an option from liquidation - maybe someone with better knowledge can comment
Probably not so bad if you're retired and have adequate funds for inevitable extra money spent. Bit different if your hotel can't extend your stay or you have a job to get back to like the majority of us....
Since when was £250m cheaper than £150m (The amount the banks required as an additional guarantee)?Very sad for those who lost their jobs and an indictment on the incompetent management who did not adapt to the changing market. That amount on top of the 750m needed and a £1.65 billion debt meant the Govt rightly decided the taxpayer should not foot the bill for a temporary fix. As the Government said it is not usual for a government to run a travel firm. Notice the opposition parties trying to blame Govt. with McDonnell displayed his usual stance and lack of economic nous when it comes to the Govt spending taxpayers money i.e. states that they should have stumped up the cash.
The debt including the pension deficit is Over 1.5 billion pounds ( that after a 750m rescue package only a few years ago) Not an attractive investment or a 'going concern'.