Thomas Cook abomination

Sudden said:
And no lawyer would ever advise their client to go ahead and say stuff which could be tantamount to admitting liability without committing malpractice and being in breach of his own code of conduct.
Click to expand...

Covering his own back is more important than the family of those children who died then.:(

At some point all the legal considerations have to become secondary and a sincere and heartfelt apology from the boss of TC should be issued and he should answer questions asked of him.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28053832 said:
Doubtless they do visit the hotels they offer but when you offer thousands of hotels you can hardly visit every single one every single month just to make sure you are not doing business with dishonest liars. The reps are hardly qualified to perform independent inspections of every aspect of a hotel's electrical and heating system so it'd need to be entirely separate staff.
Click to expand...

If TC are prepared to make money off these hotels then they should ensure they are checked and safe. If they don't have the staff to check they are ssafe then they shouldn't be using them.
 
wordy said:
Covering his own back is more important than the family of those children who died then. :(

At some point all the legal considerations have to become secondary and a sincere and heartfelt apology from the boss of TC should be issued and he should answer questions asked of him.
Click to expand...

Well, coming at this as a lawyer, I think it's a balancing act. Where you are talking criminal liability, yes, covering your back should take priority in my opinion. The downside is too high of taking that kind of risk.

If however the downside was simply having to pay out a nominal amount as a result, then yes, I would agree with you (and it would also look better from a PR perspective). They have (I suspect) balanced the two and decided that this is the lesser of the two evils.
 
Sudden said:
Well, coming at this as a lawyer, I think it's a balancing act. Where you are talking criminal liability, yes, covering your back should take priority in my opinion. The downside is too high of taking that kind of risk.

If however the downside was simply having to pay out a nominal amount as a result, then yes, I would agree with you (and it would also look better from a PR perspective). They have (I suspect) balanced the two and decided that this is the lesser of the two evils.
Click to expand...

There is a higher court for any company and that is the court of public opinion. They are dependant on the public for their profits and a public backlash would cost them dear.
Given that the people book with the tour operator are they not therefore liable. Whether they than subcontract out for services is irrelevant?
 
do_ron_ron said:
There is a higher court for any company and that is the court of public opinion. They are dependant on the public for their profits and a public backlash would cost them dear.
Given that the people book with the tour operator are they not therefore liable. Whether they than subcontract out for services is irrelevant?
Click to expand...

What do you think would cost them more? Upset customers or a criminal conviction? Public response to negative reactions would be 'hey, we're sorry, but look - court cleared us of responsibility'. What is the response if as a result of statements, they are found to be guilty? Are people more likely to use them?

Re. the second point - i've never really used anyone like Thomas Cook so difficult for me to say. Depends on how exactly it works and the contracts are structured. To be honest, I was surprised that they had to do anything, even checking with the property if they were up to code etc. I had assumed all they do is find deals and put you in touch with the relevant hotel etc. and then it's between you two - sort of like an eBay for holidays.
 
jamief said:
It might allow them time to grieve without having to worry about paying bills? It might allow them an appropriate amount of time off work to try and rebuild their lives? Etc etc.
Click to expand...

Considering there are many thesis' on the fact that work actually helps after a grievance... i dont think so. (Not saying they don't deserve more, but firmly in the can't attach worth crowd)
 
StriderX said:
Considering there are many thesis' on the fact that work actually helps after a grievance... i dont think so. (Not saying they don't deserve more, but firmly in the can't attach worth crowd)
Click to expand...

I'm sure "work" does help - but I've known someone who lost a child, and they had to go back to work a lot sooner than was necessary. Had they had the means, spending a few months travelling or volunteering somewhere would have been far better for them than being forced back into the rat race after 14 days.
 
Sudden said:
Re. the second point - i've never really used anyone like Thomas Cook so difficult for me to say. Depends on how exactly it works and the contracts are structured. To be honest, I was surprised that they had to do anything, even checking with the property if they were up to code etc. I had assumed all they do is find deals and put you in touch with the relevant hotel etc. and then it's between you two - sort of like an eBay for holidays.
Click to expand...

It may well be possible to put together the components of a holiday like that through Thomas Cook these days, however the traditional expectation was that most people purchased a "package" holiday from them. So as well as providing the flights, transfers and accommodation, Thomas Cook would provide the description and rating for the accommodation and the services of a Thomas Cook rep etc. in resort.
 
randal said:
And apologised.


Damage limitation in motion.
Click to expand...

The family aren't too happy with this so called 'apology':

"We haven't had this 'so called' letter of apology. We have been shown it by the press and feel it is an appalling continuation of Thomas Cook's PR exercise.

"It's not an apology for their wrongdoing but a general offer of sympathy."
Click to expand...

and I'm surprised that it hasn't been leaked yet.

As to the damage limitation, everyone can see that it's a knee-jerk reaction so the damage will remain.
 
Cosimo said:
As to the damage limitation, everyone can see that it's a knee-jerk reaction so the damage will remain.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's about as crass as it gets. All Thomas Cook can do now is keep their heads down and pray the media find something else to tear to pieces.
 
Kept £1.5m for their legal costs.

Yeah, because they daren't pay them out of their own profits.

The fact remains that even with the donation, Thomas Cook have not lost anything financially and still think some half assed apology letter is enough.
 
As i understand it TC won their case against the hotel and received an amount around 3.5 million right? Is that on top of that their legal costs as well?

What was the 3.5 million for? The damage to their reputation?

Why? What will £1.5m do exactly?
Click to expand...

The way the world works unfortunately is everything must have a monetary value. Ergo compensation would be in the form of a monetary value. I'm not saying £1.5m = the price of 2 childrens lives though.
 
Anyone would think TC were to blame rather than some twisted ideas of money and compensation driving hatred towards them.


Go on, put a value on death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom