Talk:Travel agencies

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thomas Cook has gone bust.[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Thomas Cook (a leading UK package travel operator) has ceased trading.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49791249 https://www.thomascookgroup.com/news/23092019/compulsory-liquidation-of-thomas-cook-group-plc?ref=Home

I'll run a quick check for in wiki references, but if other contributors want to make appropriate changes.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cook: warning somewhere?[edit]

I think Thomas Cook are Britain's largest travel company. Certainly they arrange lots of package holidays. Back in the 70s & 80s we found that their travellers' cheques were accepted more readily in much of Asia than the less-known brand American Express.

However, now Roughly 600,000 travelers are stranded around the world after the British travel provider Thomas Cook declares bankruptcy and some travellers are being asked for extra fees Thomas Cook customers say they were 'held hostage' at Tunisian hotel.

Is this something we need a warning about? Where?

Is there some form of travel insurance that will protect travellers if their tour company goes belly up? In a quick scan, I do not find that in the article. Pashley (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Common_scams#Guests_asked_for_additional_payment,_due_to_dispute_with_another_party_(like_a_package_operator)?_..... Pashley (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More information? - Thomas Cook has ceased trading - Information for customers and travel businesses (on the UK CAA website). Looks to be official. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ATOL scheme may cover some packages sold in the UK - see [[1]] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on what to do when the travel operator can't operate? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were Thomas Cook still issuing Traveller's Cheques? because that's not something the media coverage I've been reading mentions anything about. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also affects the subsidaries of Thomas Cook, for example Tjäreborg here in Finland. Hundreds of their customers did learn this morning that their planes aren't going to be taking off, and thousands more are stuck in different Mediterranean countries.
Maybe a warning could be approporiate, but I don't know what article to place it in. On the other hand, I somehow believe few package tour readers have discovered/use our travel guide, due to our comparatively weak coverage of places like the Caribbean or the Canary Islands that draw millions of visitors every year.
Also, it's sort of sad that the company that once enabled people that weren't millionares or royalty to travel for pleasure for the first time is gone. Ypsilon (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Page? That's where they put travel warnings on Wikitravel. I wouldn't suggest it for our normal geographical travel warnings, but something like this affects more than half a million travellers around the world.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When thinking about it, it could actually be appropriate to put a warning on the Main Page. Ypsilon (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have had travel insurance which (as an extra cost option) offered cover for failure of transport operators. In the specific case of Thomas Cook, I expect that most UK travellers booked with them will be get home (or get money back if they have yet to start) from ATOL protection - the UK CAA is arranging flights. Those who have booked flights alone (no hotel etc) don't qualify for ATOL, but were included in flights home when Monarch failed, and may be able to claim from their credit card company. As Thomas Cook won't be taking new bookings, I don't see a need for a warning - those already booked will hear directly. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should we get a new banner for Travel agencies as it uses a 1910 Thomas Cook poster? AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—it's hard for me to see who the warning would be useful for. I don't think the Travel agencies banner needs to be changed—it's obvious that it's a historical image, and the "Thomas Cook" name is not visible in the image. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Double check your travel insurance. Many policies actually don't cover any incurred additional expenses if the airline/transportation provider declares bankruptcy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other impacts.[edit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49805534 concerning impact on prices from other operators/agencies. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC) and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49797807 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a news agency, and the travellers will all be brought home by CAA / ATOL scheme in the next few days. The Med season is ending so predatory pricing has natural limits. But if, as stated, our coverage of TCX destinations is weak, that's an editing priority right there. There's an awful lot of those: I've made a start on Dalmatia coast in Croatia. Can we identify any where TCX was such a dominant operator that "Get in" and viability of resort facilities are compromised? I recall operator bankruptcies that scuppered North Cyprus and Montenegro for a couple of years till others took over. Grahamsands (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women only travel organisations[edit]

Is it really a thing that's mostly worldwide, or is it just a couple of outliers in a certain country. Because User:Anuj Timetravel has kept edit warring with me and LPfi about this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not up to date. Australia has no more of this, and it's been like this for a couple of years now. Maybe that can be added in Sex segregation, but NOT here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request you to google for the same term and search for specific Australia if you must, The same features even on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_agency. It is merely adding missing information onto wikivoyage. —The preceding comment was added by Anuj timetravel (talk • contribs)
I presume your talking about this sentence:
We don't usually include these niche markets, they either go in Travelling with a disability, or what is the best solution, leave it out. Also, that has nothing about Australia, and again, the idea is widely criticised in Australia. Gender discrimination isn't a major thing here, and having something like this leads to pressure to remove a thing like this. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by adding four tides at the end like this: ~~~~ SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was added in a sentence that mentions a bunch of niche markets. If there are single-sex (either all-female or all-male) trips, that can be mentioned in passing along with the others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This was added in this sentence:

"business travel, cruise ships, resort and theme park vacations, honeymoon travel"

Those aren't niche, are they? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they? How do you define "niche"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Several edit conflicts]
Niche markets, but niches dominated by travel agencies. Here is the edit, or one of them. My problem with it is that Anuj timetravel added "women-only travel groups" to markets still dominated by travel agencies, saying "There is a new specialized segment of travel, with many specialists".
I don't doubt the existence of such specialists, but I doubt they dominate travel by groups of women. I am sure it is much more common that a group of female friends arrange their travel by themselves.
If, in fact, this segment is important (for a reasonable amount of our readers), it should be described, perhaps as its own section, towards the end of the article. Such a description would be helpful, much more so than a mention in the lead.
–LPfi (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a group of women book through a travel agent when a similar mixed group wouldn't? Or is it that this women's group isn't similar? How does it differ? What makes it want to book through an agent? –LPfi (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see also visa trouble was a reason to use a travel agent. Let's hadle that separately, under a different heading. –LPfi (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point one post up [edit conflict]. But by the same token, why do you need a travel agent to book a cruise ship, a theme park or a resort? Nevertheless, if such travel is dominated by travel agents, your point is made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: - this is my definition of niche, which is the second def. when you type it up on google: "a specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service.". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good if the user would clarify where in the world it's common with travel agencies specializing in trips for female groups, some Middle Eastern countries maybe? --Ypsilon (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Travel_agencies&oldid=4213787"