–
I owe you, dear readers, an explanation. Some travel agencies are also welfare offices, I claimed in the Legal Matters column of August 19 of this strange year. As the? Let me go back a little to explain:
The travel industry generates a substantial part of the economic added value in our country, contributes to the gross national product as best it can and so far successfully. It is understandable that a necessary structural change should not be prevented with billions in taxpayers’ money, even for us tourism professionals. But is it part of this change that hundreds of SME travel companies are currently facing economic collapse, just because a virus is taking power to health policy for a hopefully soon foreseeable time?
Well, contrary to my last column, as a lawyer I am neither a pastor nor an expert in economic policy (who is that today in the complexity of the matter?) … but one thing has to be preached here again: It cannot and must not be an exact matter of this industry, which is existentially important for the economy itself, tourism, to have to practically single-handedly pay for the damage that this pandemic causes it.
In plain language again written under the hat of the professional conflict worker: Consumer protection law, especially for package tours, is to be changed; the benefits and risks of global travel via the industry’s professional services are differentiated. The fact that a travel agency has to replace non-refundable travel prices out of its own pocket at the request of customers (PauRG 10 and 11) is absurd and, in the jargon currently popular elsewhere, «toxic».
The climate in the travel industry has not only warmed up due to this pandemic, it has actually poisoned it in hundreds of legal cases. Many companies are currently arguing with their backs to the wall for fair solutions with their travel customers. Many customers understand the situation exactly and are accommodating; You bear this part of the loss, I bear that part, you see each other again in life, the journey together will continue.
Others have to be made to understand through the laborious and even costly legal process that when traveling, as in life, only give and take can function. Does that make the claim more understandable that travel agencies (have to) get involved socially at the moment? And if things are going badly, even beyond the emergency needs of the customers (have to) shell out cash benefits to them?
Incidentally, there was light on the horizon in the most recently reported case of the Africa travel customer: shortly before the complaint was submitted to the court, the man was still willing to pay at least the cost of the TO for the trip he had canceled due to Corona. All’s well that ends well, we thought in the case of another TO, whose customers also agreed to an appropriate division of the lost travel money.
Immediately after the travel agency reimbursed the agreed amount, these customers could not fail to blacken the TO for its “criminal” behavior, for not having reimbursed the entire travel price. The wording and distribution of this lament grew to such an extent that a report of defamation was inevitable.
Now the judiciary has to teach these people, at the expense of the taxpayers, that it is neither customary nor legal in our society to accuse business partners of third parties of criminal acts against their better knowledge. – One is tempted to even speak of a kindergarten to which this travel client is ordered back.
But enough of the analogies, the situation is neither funny nor purely socio-political. Where decency and a sense of proportion are no longer a natural standard of living, it becomes almost impossible for the judiciary to restore better conditions through punishment.
In the meantime, we are still fighting for acceptable solutions on the customer front; or with less martial vocabulary: professionals from all parties are busy bringing the interests of all participants in the travel biz under one roof. There is still a long way to go from the specific individual case to the exemplary renewed legislation in federal Bern. Let us take this opportunity, so my suggestion, to take advantage of the changes in the structures in social, animal-ethical and ecological terms for a strong Reisez (uk) unft soon.
Dr. iur. Peter Krepper lives and works as a lawyer and mediator in Zurich.
Questions to [email protected]
To press
–
–
