Asia's Tourism Industry in Peril Amid Middle East Conflict
Simon Calder responds to pressing travel questions regarding the fallout from the Middle East crisis, exploring its devastating impact on the tourism sector across Asia, the availability of cheaper flights through the region, and the complexities of securing refunds for disrupted journeys.
Tourism Collapse and Business Survival
A reader from Sri Lanka highlights a dire situation: a small hotel owner in Mirissa has faced $20,000 (£15,000) in cancellations due to the Middle East turmoil. This sum represents a significant financial blow in Sri Lanka, raising concerns about how many local businesses might not survive this crisis.
Calder notes that this underscores one of the saddest consequences of the tourism collapse between Asia and Europe, triggered by the Iran conflict. Many traders rely on affluent Western tourists to sustain their operations and support their families, with Gulf airlines playing a crucial role in bringing in customers.
The situation is described as desperately unfair, with Iran identified as the primary party responsible for the near-collapse of aviation. The Islamic republic is retaliating by targeting economic infrastructure in the UAE and Qatar, intermittently closing airspace and stranding thousands more travelers each time.
An adventure by Donald Trump, combined with vengeance wrought by Israel, is having a massive effect on tourism across the eastern hemisphere. This scale of disruption has not been seen since the two Gulf wars. Calder expresses optimism for Sri Lanka's tourism recovery, predicting that airlines will eventually open new routes to meet demand. He points out that tourists have become overreliant on transfers via the Middle East, and the premium for non-stop flights has increased.
While sympathizing with the Sri Lankan property owner, Calder is not overly despondent. He highlights the vast Indian outbound market, which is normally the chief source of tourists to Dubai, followed by Saudi Arabia and the UK. A relatively small percentage of Indian tourists switching to Sri Lanka could help offset the shortfall, potentially discovering a superb new holiday destination that is cheaper and easier to reach than the UAE.
Cheaper Flights and Transit Risks
Another query addresses the cheaper flights offered by Emirates and Etihad compared to routes avoiding stops in the United Arab Emirates. The reader questions whether being in transit exempts travelers from risks, as they do not pass through immigration and merely pause at terminals in Abu Dhabi or Dubai.
Calder, writing from Jakarta airport while boarding an Etihad flight to Abu Dhabi with an onward connection to London Heathrow, confirms that fares via Gulf hubs are about one-third as much as those via other hubs. Since the US and Israel attacked Iran, and Tehran retaliated with strikes on the UAE and Qatar, significant capacity has been removed from the Asia-to-UK market. Qatar Airways has largely ceased flying to and from its Doha hub, causing distress to tens of thousands of stranded passengers.
Emirates and Etihad are slowly rebuilding their schedules using limited airspace. Besides repatriating passengers, they are now selling tickets via their hubs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. However, the Foreign Office advises against all but essential travel to the UAE, citing ongoing Iranian strikes on civilian infrastructure, including airports.
Calder clarifies that there is no exemption for airside transit in the UAE, regardless of whether travelers pass through immigration. He notes that while the Foreign Office allows such exemptions in places like Guayaquil, Ecuador, and Tijuana, Mexico, the risks in the UAE are deemed too high. In expectation that airlines and authorities know what they are doing, he is willing to take the chance.
Refunds and Financial Remedies
A final question involves a daughter who flew from Phnom Penh to London via Seoul to avoid uncertainty and transit via the UAE, which the Foreign Office deems unsafe. The new flight cost around £1,500, but she can only recover about £250 as a refund from the airline, leaving a significant financial gap.
Calder explains that this situation affects many British travelers dealt a lousy hand in the current crisis. Air passengers' rights rules are asymmetric: generous for flights starting at British airports but not applicable for flights starting outside Europe on non-UK/EU airlines. If airlines like Emirates, Etihad, or Qatar Airways cancel a homebound trip from an Asian airport, they only need to offer a replacement flight or a refund of the unused part of the ticket.
The refund amount may be disappointingly low due to components like UK air passenger duty and Heathrow's service charge, which the airline has already paid. For example, on a £630 return ticket, the refund might shrink to £250 after deductions.
Calder suggests possible remedies, though odds are not favorable. First, travelers can try claiming the difference from travel insurance, but many policies exclude losses from "declared or undeclared war or hostilities." Insurers might pay as an exceptional case, and if claims are denied, the Financial Ombudsman Service could rule in favor if buying a new ticket was the only way to avoid "no-go" territory. Finally, airlines might decide to reimburse passengers who incurred large credit card bills through no fault of their own. Travelers are advised to keep receipts and contact Simon Calder via email or Twitter for further assistance.
