And this is because a number of airlines are taking part in the repatriation effort. Some are accommodating the repatriations within their scheduled capacity, and some are doing it through being chartered. AIUI, all of it is under the CAA's remit because of the ATOL scheme.

Without the scheme, some eligible Thomas Cook customers would be genuinely stranded: they would be overseas with no means of returning home because they have no extra funds with which to do so. Indeed, I suspect that there may well be some Thomas Cook customers who will nevertheless still find themselves in this position if they have no ATOL protection, no travel insurance and no funds. Without the ATOL scheme in which BA is taking part, I imagine that many more Thomas Cook customers would have found themselves genuinely stranded like this.

BA customers who were affected by the strike were never in that position. At worst, they have been inconvenienced. It is stretching language to suggest that someone who, with some notice, found that their trip had to be extended by two or three days was "stranded" overseas. That's tabloid writing.

And given that this is said to be the UK's biggest-ever peacetime repatriation exercise, it's a bit baffling to find someone complaining that BA's pilots will simply continue to work normally for its duration. The complaint seems to be that because some BA passengers were inconvenienced by the strikes a couple of weeks ago (at a time when it was not known whether or when Thomas Cook might go under), Thomas Cook passengers should now be equally inconvenienced by further strikes.