Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Travel Company Thomas Cook Collapses, Stranding Customers Worldwide

The world’s oldest travel company, UK-based Thomas Cook—which operates hotels and resorts around the world as well as its own airlines—all but collapsed this week, cancelling all of the company’s bookings (including flights and holiday packages), and closing its retail locations. The shutdown left 600,000 customers stranded, and Reuters called the effort to get passengers home “the biggest ever peacetime repatriation,” with 64 flights bringing 14,700 back to the United Kingdom on Monday, and hundreds of thousands more are expected to be transported over the next two weeks. The collapse also leaves more than 20,000 employees out of work.

Thomas Cook was buried in debt, partially due to its reluctance to adapt quickly to online travel booking and worries about Brexit, and lenders stopped funding the company. The company had requested £900 million ($1.1 billion) from its creditors and the Chinese company Fosun, Thomas Cook’s largest shareholder, but the deal did not materialize. According to The Guardian, as the company slipped further into debt, payment card companies like American Express and Barclays also limited cash collections and payment services to mitigate harm from a collapse.

The UK government also denied Thomas Cook a last-minute $310 million bailout, partially because, as UK business secretary Andrea Leadsom said, “Thomas Cook is sitting on trying to service £1.7 billion [$2.1 billion] of debt, and it would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money to be throwing good money after bad.” Reportedly, the Turkish government and some Spanish hotel businesses offered to front £200 million ($247 million) to save the company if the UK government would guarantee the investment. But the UK government rejected the deal, saying that the amount would not have sustained the company for more than two weeks.

Leadsom said that she also asked for an expedited investigation into the corporate collapse by the UK’s Insolvency Service—a branch of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that handles corporate liquidations and personal bankruptcy cases, including investigating companies’ bankruptcies for misconduct.  Others raised the issue of company higher-ups earning millions while the company sank, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying, “I have questions for one about whether it’s right that the directors, or whoever, the board, should pay themselves large sums when businesses can go down the tubes like that.” The UK’s Financial Reporting Council said that it may investigate Thomas Cook’s auditors, PwC and EY, in relation to the company’s collapse.

For stranded passengers, the UK government and other airlines are stepping in to ensure everyone can make it home. In 2017, when UK company Monarch Airlines went under, the government brought all passengers home, and it appears they will do the same in this case. Of the 600,000 stranded customers, 150,000 to 160,000 are British, and UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab told the BBC that the country will be arranging alternative flights for those travelers. Customers with tickets on Thomas Cook subsidiary airline Condor will be fine, as Condor will continue to function after a £380 million loan from the German government.

Others will be able to take seats on flights provided by a variety of airlines, including US-based provider Atlas Air, British Airways, Lufthansa, and possibly Malaysian Airlines, among others.

Regarding payment, things may get more complicated. According to the BBC, UK travelers who booked a package trip are covered by the Air Travel Organiser’s Licence (ATOL), an insurance program that will cover the cost of repatriating travelers. Those who just bought flights will reportedly have to appeal to their travel insurance or credit card companies for refunds. Hotels and resorts are also reportedly asking guests who booked through Thomas Cook to pay out of pocket for their stays, as the company’s payment is in question.

How a Strong(er) SRM Program Could Have Helped Boeing

A strategic risk management (SRM) program is designed to assist organizations in identifying, prioritizing, and planning for the strategic risks that could impair or destroy businesses and reduces the chances of these kinds of crises. And while hindsight is 20-20, an SRM program – or a more effective one – could have helped Boeing avoid some of its recent high-profile crises.

Between October 2018 and March 2019, two crashes involving the Boeing 300 737 MAX 8 models resulted in the loss of 346 lives. Since then, Boeing has:

  • had a possible criminal investigation commenced against it,
  • lost $22 billion in market value in the week following the Ethiopian Airlines’ crash in October,
  • had more than 300 737 MAX 8s grounded worldwide,
  • sustained significant reputational harm,
  • received demands from airlines seeking compensation for lost revenue,
  • been sued by crash victims’ families, and
  • had sales orders cancelled or suspended.

This is a crisis from which it may be difficult to recover.

One could trace back some of the risks to its decades-long rivalry with Airbus and an effort to remain viable.

buy zetia online www.tvaxbiomedical.com/scripts/css/zetia.html no prescription pharmacy

When American Airlines indicated it was close to finalizing an exclusive deal with Airbus for hundreds of new jets, Boeing sprung to action. The New York Times reported that Boeing employees then had to move at “roughly double the normal pace” to avoid losing “billions in lost sales and potentially thousands of jobs.”

An SRM program would have required an assessment of the business model and the associated risks, including competitors, long before the call from the CEO of American Airlines. The risks would have been prioritized and this information would have been factored into strategic plans that would have included responses to material risks.

During the scramble, Boeing mirrored Airbus’ operations and mounted larger engines in existing models.

buy arava online www.tvaxbiomedical.com/scripts/css/arava.html no prescription pharmacy

 The objective seemed straightforward: Make minimum changes to avoid the need for training in a simulator, decrease costs, and build the redesigned model quickly. But a risk was that mounting larger engines changed the aerodynamics in the aircraft, requiring a consequential need for new software, a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) which was supposed to prevent stalling. Boeing’s view was that pilots did not need to be trained on the software and federal regulators agreed.

However, in an effective SRM program the C-Suite would have been advised that the strategic and life safety risks were material and that training for pilots was indeed necessary.  In addition, all such risks would have been assessed to determine whether they could be used to obtain a competitive advantage.

For example, including vital safety features in the base cost of aircraft (as opposed to charging extra for them) and requiring a focus group of pilots with no financial relationship with Boeing to test the newly designed 737 MAX 8s and the MCAS system would have been a way to solidify Boeing’s reputation for safety first.

An SRM program, which monitors progress in achieving strategic objectives with a focus on continuous improvement, would have looked at the Indonesian Lion Air and the Ethiopian Airlines crashes as an opportunity to confirm that Boeing puts safety first by grounding the aircraft. Instead, Boeing urged the U.S. to keep flying its jets until after 42 regulators in other countries had grounded them and appeared to care more about economics than life safety. Only seven months ago, Boeing was synonymous with efficient jet planes and commercial aviation – it was a reputation that took decades to build. Now, the company has a long, uphill climb to resolve its many challenges and rebuild its brand.

buy zantac online www.tvaxbiomedical.com/scripts/css/zantac.html no prescription pharmacy

An SRM program cannot succeed without full support from the C-Suite as it has to be integrated into the business model and decision-making processes in order to be effective, and in time we will learn more about what risk management protocols were followed across Boeing’s organization.

At RIMS 2019, Marian Cope will lead a panel of industry experts in discussing reasons to transform an ERM program into a SRM program or develop a SRM program in NextGen ERM:  Strategic Risk Management. The session will take place April 29th at 1:30 pm.

Sharp Increase in Air Crash Deaths in 2018

The Aviation Safety Network (ASN) released its 2018 accident statistics, marking a notable uptick in fatalities from 2017.

ASN recorded a total of 15 fatal commercial airliner accidents (12 passenger and three cargo flights), resulting in 556 fatalities.

buy symbicort inhaler online blockdrugstores.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/symbicort-inhaler.html no prescription pharmacy

 This is in stark contrast to 2017, which was the safest year in aviation history with 10 accidents and 44 lives lost.

buy tobrex online blockdrugstores.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tobrex.html no prescription pharmacy

The worst civilian accident of the year involved a Lion Air Boeing 737 Max that crashed into the Java Sea on Oct. 29, 2018, which caused the deaths of 189 people. Lion Air recently ended its search for the cockpit voice recorder but Indonesian officials said the search could resume next week.
buy augmentin generic augmentin without prescription online

ASN cited “loss of control” accidents as the top safety concern, as most are not survivable and caused at least 10 of the worst 25 accidents of the past five years.

Given the estimated worldwide air traffic of about 37.8 million flights, the accident rate is 1 in 2,520,000 flights. Despite the sharp increase in accidents, 2018 remains the third-safest year on record regarding the number of fatal accidents.

“If the accident rate had remained the same as ten years ago, there would have been 39 fatal accidents last year,” ASN CEO Harro Ranter said. “At the accident rate of the year 2000, there would have been even 64 fatal accidents. This shows the enormous progress in terms of safety in the past two decades.”

Other deadly accidents last year include the crash of another 737 in Cuba with 112 passengers and the crash of a turboprop ATR 72 in Iran’s Zagros mountains that killed all 66 people onboard.

Military flights are excluded from these findings.

buy desyrel online blockdrugstores.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/desyrel.html no prescription pharmacy

An April 11 accident involving an Algerian Air Force IL-76 transport plane that killed 257 is not included. When including military transport aircraft, the total number fatalities would be 917 in 25 fatal accidents.

FAA’s New Drone Rules Ready for Takeoff

Drone
The commercial use of drones, or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), has been widely discussed in the insurance industry. There is much to speculate upon as the technology is still emerging, with any number of possible applications and concerning reports of injuries. While drones bring the promise of efficiency, there is also the uncertain risk profile that comes with this most exciting technology.

With new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules ready to take off (pun intended) in August, there will be improved visibility into the procedures and practices used by drone operators. The FAA recently finalized the first operational rules for routine commercial use of drones and, while the total risk picture is still unknown, we can now evaluate the strength and appropriateness of safety controls employed by UAS operators.

Drones are being used in many industries, from construction to utilities to agriculture, and these industries will need to prioritize compliance and risk mitigation. Some of the new operational limitations from the FAA include:

  • At all times the drone must remain close enough to its remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls must be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.
  • Drones may not operate over any person not directly participating in the operation, or under a covered structure, or inside a covered stationary vehicle.
  • Drones may only operate during daylight hours or 30 minutes before sunrise or 30 minutes after sunset with appropriate anti-collision lighting.
  • Drones cannot operate from a moving vehicle unless it is over a sparsely populated area.

These rules appear to provide sound guidelines, but most regulations are only as good as the ability for them to be enforced. For example, under the rules’ operational limitations section, it is stated that most of the new restrictions are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can be safely conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver. How often will these waivers be allowed and how will the FAA conduct investigations? Insurers will be watching to see how the rules are implemented and enforced.

Clearly, we should take note of this important moment for drones, as implementation of federal safety standards for emerging risk drivers has spawned or grown new insurance business lines that are now viewed as essential coverages. For example, environmental regulation in the late 1970’s and 80’s created the need for environmental coverage.

buy imodium online achievephysiorehab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/imodium.html no prescription pharmacy

State and more recent federal cyber laws are the backbone of cyber policies as insureds must comply with standards to prepare for and respond to breaches. Most recently, the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act is driving insureds to take a fresh look at product recall insurance.

Risk managers should expect operating rules to drive new coverages that support the insured’s risk evaluation process.

buy sildalis online achievephysiorehab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/sildalis.html no prescription pharmacy

This will allow for a spectrum of outcomes from exclusionary wording for UAS operations to distinct coverage grants for safe and compliant operators. Loss control and consulting services from insurers could be helpful to guide the risk management surrounding drones. The federal rules also enable additional objective underwriting questions tied to compliance. Expect to see these questions incorporated into specific UAS underwriting application questions.

The risk manager can readily imagine the Coverage A risks that can arise from UAS operations. Those could include but are not limited to third party bodily injury resulting from aircraft failure, a wildfire resulting from a crash and potential catastrophic terrorism uses. Privacy risk under Coverage B is also a risk easy to imagine and well-documented even in the early stages of this new commercial risk driver.

Insurance brokers or consultants can also offer guidance on the various ISO endorsements in circulation seeking to clarify the commercial general liability aircraft exclusions to include unmanned aircraft. ISO endorsements provide options to include Coverage A and/or schedule-specific aircraft for coverage. I do not believe that ISO has plans to amend the currently available endorsement in response to the aforementioned FAA operating rules.

There is no question the use of drones is only going to expand in its application and, with that, operational safety will improve as exposures grow. The industry should expect increased regulations, including flight worthiness certification as well as possible insurance requirements. According to a Goldman Sachs analysis, total global spending on drones in the commercial market is estimated to be around 0 billion over the next five years.

buy tretiva online achievephysiorehab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tretiva.html no prescription pharmacy

Of that, about $11.2 billion will be generated by the construction industry.

Risk managers should anticipate liability exposure for those that fail to comply with the new regulations. The uses are vast, and given the diversity of users the levels of knowledge and awareness of compliance obligations will vary. Education will be key to ensure users understand their responsibilities and the consequences for not meeting regulatory standards.

As the technology and uses continue to advance, catastrophic loss examples will likely arise in the future. I am hopeful that the new FAA regulation will be a useful tool to mitigate the unknown risks to both drone operators and third party premises owners that might be exposed to drone-related accidents.