According to the proposal, in the event of a cancellation by the carrier, agencies that handled the booking would be required to refund the customer within 14 days, regardless of whether they have received the corresponding refund from the airline. Although this obligation is well-intentioned from a consumer perspective, it overlooks the complexities of the distribution channel and unfairly shifts the financial risk from airlines to agencies.
The European association ECTAA (European Travel Agents’ and Tour Operators’ Associations) has already expressed deep concern. Through its Secretary General, Eric Dresin, the organization has warned that this provision is not only unfair but potentially devastating for thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that make up the backbone of the European travel sector. “It’s like forcing supermarkets to refund defective products before the manufacturer does,” Dresin remarked in a message to EU policymakers.
The proposal is especially relevant in the context of the recent pandemic, during which many agencies found themselves caught in a perfect storm: customers demanding refunds, airlines withholding payments, and confusing regulations. That experience made it clear that consumer protection mechanisms must be strengthened, but also that the real workings of the tourism market—where agencies often act solely as intermediaries—must be understood and respected.
One of the main arguments from travel agency associations is that the proposed regulation could even discourage consumers from booking through professional channels, favoring direct sales and weakening diversity and competition in the market. Added to this is the risk of insolvency for many agencies, which could be forced to advance large sums of money that have not yet been recovered—especially in times of high cancellation rates, such as during a health crisis.
Rather than shifting the burden to agencies, the sector advocates for stronger enforcement mechanisms to compel airlines to comply with the reimbursement deadlines already established by current EU regulations. In fact, existing rules require airlines to refund canceled tickets within seven days. However, compliance has been poor, and in many cases, national authorities have failed to exert the necessary pressure to enforce this obligation.
ECTAA, together with national associations like CEAV in Spain, has urged Member States and MEPs to reject this specific amendment, calling instead for more equitable and sustainable solutions. In their view, any reform of passenger rights must consider both consumer protection and the viability of the actors who make European tourism mobility possible.
The final decision will be made in the coming months, and although the proposal still needs to be negotiated between the Council and the European Parliament, alarm bells are already ringing among industry professionals. Travel agencies fear not only a new financial burden but also a weakening of their role as a trusted channel for consumers.
If the measure is approved as currently drafted, it will not only jeopardize the economic stability of thousands of companies but also compromise fair and safe access to travel services for millions of European citizens. The question that remains is whether Brussels is willing to listen to all stakeholders involved—or whether a one-sided vision will once again prevail, potentially causing more harm than good to the tourism ecosystem as a whole.
