Yes, I do, which is why I specifically said a package tour.
I think most people sound of mind know what one of those is and whether they are booking one or not, and the presence of ATOL protection is a good way to identify one (or the absence of it, e.g. if you book a hotel and flight separately through easyJet's website, say).
Perhaps this still does bear addressing.
If a package tour including
air travel is booked and an agent or tour operator goes out of business, then depending on a number of other circumstances, the money paid is protected under ATOL and a refund will be due if departure has not yet taken place
and some or all of the component parts of the tour will not operate
or the monies paid have not been remitted and cannot be remitted to the suppliers of the component parts.
If the tour is already started, it
may be possible to continue the trip as planned, at no additional cost, or reimbursement for additional costs incurred may be offered, or a variation to the tour and/or repatriaton at the CAA's convenience will be arranged where the airline is the failed party.
As this thread and forum relates principally to rail travel, it's naturally important to be clear that train plus hotel (for example) is not covered in the same way, and post #23 doesn't specifically refer to air travel. Indeed, a lot of people recognise 'ATOL' but assume that it applies to any kind of package tour, not realising that it's only paclages including air travel.
It's also important to re-emphasise once again that, when booking a package tour, the tour operator's terms and conditions usually provide for them being able to amend the components of the package to fulfil their obligations.
The last high-profile and well-publicised case of ATOL protection swinging into action was, of course, as a result of the failure of Thomas Cook, a tour
operator which also operated its own travel
agency. It was not the case that an airline operating part of a Thomas Cook tour, or a hotel accomodating Thomas Cook guests failed, nor was it a travel agency acting on behalf of but not as part of the operator that failed.
It's therefore equally
not the case that ATOL works in the same way, if indeed at all, when it's a
supplier of a component part of a trip that fails.
Indeed, the only other real set of circumstances where ATOL would apply in a similar way to the Thomas Cook case would be if a travel
agent, through which an ATOL-protected package provided by a tour operator had been booked, went bust - ie when the agent itself is not the tour operator
and they had not bonded or remitted all funds.
If a government bans flights then ATOL does not by default apply. If the tour operator is still operating, then its own terms and conditions will apply first. As an example, they may simply offer a re-route. As they're exceptional circumstances, some of the provisions of the EU261/2004 flight delay and cancellation remedies may not apply either.
If a hotel booked as part of an air travel package goes bust then ATOL does not necessarily apply. Again, the tour operator's terms and conditions take precedence and they may offer an alternative hotel.
So it's important to be clear about both where and when ATOL applies, and what it actually covers, or at least not to think that it's more than it is.
Tangetially, there's also the notion of Linked Travel Arrangements, which are not packages and are not covered in the same way, although a lot of people do mistakenly think that they are.
