MSPeconomist

In some sense, ULCC carriers *should* be riskier (or should be allowed to be riskier) and customers should be allowed to self insure if they wish to handle it this way. With mandatory insurance, who insures the insurance provider when there's a very substantial incident? Also, mandatory insurance would decrease incentives for these ULCCs and package tour agencies to be responsible, partly because potential customers will feel covered anyway and hence won't bother to investigate and send their business to airlines and agencies that are in better financial condition.

I suspect that part of Thomas Cook's problem was that credit card companies were increasingly holding back payments in case insolvency would lead to many chargebacks.

From the viewpoint of consumers, part of the problem is that many people apparently travel in this way with no emergency funds. Maybe instead of insurance, the customers should be required to escrow an amount equal to the cost of repatriation (but I know this won't happen). Yes, the government should help with evacuations when there are natural disasters and major military/political incidents and perhaps the government can help with repatriation logistics in cases like this, but why should citizens and residents expect their government to arrange and pay for their return flights if they're stranded penniless in some foreign vacation destination? Taking the vacation was a choice as was purchasing it from Thomas Cook.