Surely the management must have known a week or two ago that the company was about to go under. In that case, stop anyone flying out but still bring people back. By the time they actually cease trading there should be few people left abroad. Some managers in Thomas Cook must have known that people flying out were going to end up stranded and they just let them go.
Agreed, if you knew there was 0% hope (say, of flying anyone back a week hence) it would be unethical to keep it going. But if you were trying to keep things afloat and thought you could do, it would be unethical to do otherwise, since stopping new outbounds would 100% doom the firm and strand the overseas travelers.
If the answer is “close to zero”, we need to rethink this privilege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability#Justificatio...
The instant the airline says "We're no longer accepting bookings because we're working to figure out a cash situation." you've got to believe everyone else who is still booked will pull their ticket for a refund of any form. I would be.
There would be a massive outflow of what little available cash exists.
The announcement whether early or late is the immediate death knell of the company.
I do agree at face value this seems terrible, but I honestly don't see a better course of action given they were waiting for a bailout and then didn't receive it.
That way if the travel company or airline or hotel goes out of business, the holidaymaker hasn't lost any money (although they might face the cost of buying a last-minute flight from a different airline, or similar)
Of course, you could argue consumers who want such peace of mind can already approximate such an arrangement by combining a package holiday with travel insurance.
But I doubt they’re happy about that experience.