Will insurance cover a coronavirus cancellation?

Simon Calder answers your questions on travel amid the outbreak, all-inclusive trips, and shelling out for extra legroom and seats with your group

An ambulance arrives with a patient at a Hong Kong hospital (Getty)

Q I have recently booked a trip to Thailand in March and have a large balance to pay at the end of the week. I am worried about the Sars-like virus outbreak in China and Asia so am unsure whether to cancel and lose my deposit or to pay the balance and rely on insurance in the event that the Foreign Office recommends against travel to the region. What do you recommend and do you know what the FCO recommended when the Sars outbreak occurred before?

Name withheld

A I infer from the fact that you are paying the balance at the end of the week that your trip is a proper package holiday – typically it is due eight weeks before departure.

If that is the case, then in the extremely unlikely event that the Foreign Office were to warn against travel to Thailand, the trip would not go ahead and you would get a full refund. (For the avoidance of doubt, that would apply whether the official warning is against “all travel” or “all but essential travel” – the two unhelpfully close definitions from the FCO).

You could of course lose your deposit, but as things stand that strikes me as an excessive response. While the loss of life from the new Wuhan coronavirus is very sad, and there are certain to be more cases in the coming days and weeks, I believe the potential risk of the virus to a traveller in Thailand is one of the smaller dangers of a trip there – with road and water safety being far bigger concerns.

So I urge you to pay the balance, and on your trip practice the basic good hygiene that everyone travelling to that part of the world should be doing anyway: keep washing your hands thoroughly using soap, don’t go close to people who appear to be ill, and don’t accept undercooked meat or eggs when eating out.

Some carriers still do all they can to seat parents next to children (Getty/iStock)

Q I heard you say that people shouldn’t bother to pay for sitting together on an aircraft. Don’t you think you are misleading people? With your words you create needless problems for families at the airport when they board.

Mikey I

A Many airlines now charge for people who want to pre-book specific seats. This is a 21st century development. As ferocious competition drove airfares down, carriers sought new ways to increase “ancillary revenue” – in other words, optional extras.

Previously airlines did all they could to sit families and couples together free of charge, and some of them still do; easyJet’s “random allocation” for passengers who prefer not to pay to pre-select seats works well, in my experience. Any family booked with British Airways can look forward to being assigned seats together (that’s not a promise BA explicitly makes, but in my experience it always happens).

So on those two airlines, which between them fly close to 150 million passengers annually, there is (in my experience) no need to pay. I don’t think I am creating problems for families – just trying to save them money.

Other carriers are not so kind but fortunately families can rely on the Civil Aviation Authority’s requirements. “The seating of children close by their parents or guardians should be the aim of airline seat allocation procedures for family groups,” the regulator says.

“Young children and infants who are accompanied by adults should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult. Where this is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults. This is because the speed of an emergency evacuation may be affected by adults trying to reach their children.”

In practice, all the airlines I have contacted say they will always seat an adult next to a child rather than a row apart. Accordingly, I contend that I am neither misleading people nor creating needless problems for families. On the contrary, I hope I am saving them money and putting their minds at rest.

If the airlines’ seating policies are at odds with their ancillary revenue strategies, I suggest that is their problem, not the passenger’s.

Alcohol restrictions are only in certain locations such as Magaluf (Getty)

Q I have booked an all-inclusive hotel in Palma Nova in April. I see the Balearic Islands have introduced new rules on all-inclusives. Does the new law limiting drinks to six a day apply to me, as I had booked in December? Am I within my rights to cancel with no penalty, if this is the case?

Wendy M

A The government of the Spanish islands of Ibiza, Menorca and Mallorca has brought in new rules intended at calming the most excessive behaviour by young holidaymakers. The aim of the decree is to tackle antisocial behaviour.

The authorities say “the law aims to create a more sustainable and respectful tourism model, in terms of the environment, the quality of life for residents”, and aims to crack down on “excessive alcohol consumption in certain places of the Balearic Islands”. The law applies to only four specific areas: Playa de Palma, El Arenal and Magaluf on Mallorca, and the West End of San Antonio on Ibiza.

Caps on the amount of consumption at all-inclusive hotels are, I understand, limited to those three locations. You will be in Palma Nova, the next-door resort to Magaluf, so I imagine you will be unaffected. If there is any confusion, then you can point to the line saying: “The rule will respect the contracts already signed between tour operators and hoteliers.” Since many contracts are agreed for several years, it may be some time before the last limitation is imposed on an all-inclusive resort.

The Balearic Islands government says: “This is the first standard adopted throughout Europe, which restricts the promotion and sale of alcohol in certain tourist areas.” The law will prevail initially until 2025 but if it is judged a success it may be extended – and could possibly apply to a wider range of resorts.

Queens: extra legroom on a flight to New York could cost this reader £46 per hour (Getty)

Q We are a family of three and trying to establish whether it is better value to travel to New York with British Airways or Virgin Atlantic using a premium economy service. We are planning to fly out on Saturday 4 July and return either late on Sunday 12 July or early on Monday 13 July. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Name withheld

A Virgin Atlantic was the first European airline to offer premium economy, originally known as mid class. British Airways then copied the concept. From what I can see the two are broadly comparable. I will observe that, if you can fly on Virgin Atlantic’s Airbus A350, that is likely to be a better experience than any of the gas-guzzling British Airways Boeing 747s on the Heathrow-New York run.

But a longer answer is: I cannot see any advantage in paying hundreds of pounds extra in tax – as well as the increased cost of the flight – just for the eight-hour outbound flight to New York.

Assuming you are travelling with an under-16-year-old, your total Air Passenger Duty (APD) liability in economy will £160. In premium economy, it will be £528. You might think that a bit of extra legroom is worth an extra £46 per hour of flight in tax alone – leaving aside the additional air fare. But personally I don’t.

Coming back, it is a different matter. For a start, there is no APD. The extra space will be much more valuable when you are trying to sleep, on either British Airways or Virgin Atlantic. And with the price of hotel rooms in New York, flying back overnight on the Sunday will be largely covered by saving on a night’s stay in Manhattan.

Email your question to s@hols.tv or tweet @simoncalder