Thomas Cook and the deaths in Corfu

[Ultraviolet]

Not sure what to make of this one really... Certainly taints the brand of Thomas Cook, if only for the shocking way the whole thing seems to have been handled - never mind the tragic deaths of the children involved....

After nearly 10 years, Thomas Cook was found to have "breached its duty of care" at an inquest last week, with jurors concluding that its health and safety audit of the hotel was "inadequate".

So it seems like the deaths of the two children in Corfu from carbon monoxide poisoning in their villa were as much corporate negligence as tragic accident.

uv

[Truckosaurus]

Plus the fact that Thomas Cook seem to have been able to claim a large amount of compensation from the hotel (or their insurers) to cover their legal fees and other losses.

[greg2k]

Looking at the reports of the state of that thing, it's surprising it didn't it didn't kill anyone sooner: gas water heater, leaking water so that it's constantly running, in a confined space without a flue of any kind and with a connection to the room.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3057360/Br...

That's beyond negligent, not sure about Thomas Cook's role, but it's amazing how anyone, anywhere could have thought that was OK, training or no training.

[MentalSarcasm]

Truckosaurus said:

Plus the fact that Thomas Cook seem to have been able to claim a large amount of compensation from the hotel (or their insurers) to cover their legal fees and other losses.

And then complaining, when anyone mentions it, that it still didn't cover all their costs.

[Beati Dogu]

Such a sad event. The two parents nearly died too and they probably would have done if they hadn't been physically larger than the kids and therefore more resistant.

Thomas Cook got around £3.5 million from the hotel for damage to their reputation. I know it's wasn't technically their fault, but they still have a duty of care for their customers and from a PR standpoint it hasn't reflected well on them.

[12TS]

So TC try and undo damage by giving half the damages to charity. All sounds too little too late, and half the money only (I understand that's all they got, but still it sounds mean)

They're in a really bad place now, and all self imposed. If they'd just done the right thing to start with they may have come out of it with some reputation intact. Suppose it looked good to the lawyers, but this will be far outweighed by their repetitional damage now.

[johnxjsc1985]

They have just taken another hammering from the parents and rightly so.
Someone senior at Thomas Cook should have had the balls to stand up to the Lawyers and meet the parents years ago as it is everytime the say something they get it wrong again and again.

[12TS]

I watched the parents give their latest statement on the ex chief execs bonus sacrifice. They really turned the screw and I felt like watching it from behind the sofa.

What TC did was appalling and they deserve everything now coming their way.

[Sheepshanks]

12TS said:

I watched the parents give their latest statement on the ex chief execs bonus sacrifice. They really turned the screw and I felt like watching it from behind the sofa.

What TC did was appalling and they deserve everything now coming their way.

She was became chief exec several years after it happened (didn't work there before) and wasn't there long before being booted out. (Nice work if you get it).

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but there seems to quite a lot of focus on money from the parents, one of whom wasn't even there.

[oyster]

Unfortunately this case is appearing more McCann-esque by the day.

What is it the family actually want? Former and current CEO's have apologised. Charities are benefitting from 2 huge donations.

I am getting the horrible, horrible feeling this is coming down to greasy palms and nothing more.

[Muncher]

oyster said:

Unfortunately this case is appearing more McCann-esque by the day.

What is it the family actually want? Former and current CEO's have apologised. Charities are benefitting from 2 huge donations.

I am getting the horrible, horrible feeling this is coming down to greasy palms and nothing more.

I get that impression too unfortunately.

[12TS]

Sheepshanks said:

She was became chief exec several years after it happened (didn't work there before) and wasn't there long before being booted out. (Nice work if you get it).

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but there seems to quite a lot of focus on money from the parents, one of whom wasn't even there.

She was there when the case was being handled. Refused to see them, denied any guilt. Then when she gave up her bonus she didn't discuss it with them at all and just released the statement.

I see the parents as the innocent parties in all of this, what coul they have done to prevent the deaths?

[Sheepshanks]

12TS said:

She was there when the case was being handled. Refused to see them, denied any guilt. Then when she gave up her bonus she didn't discuss it with them at all and just released the statement.

Sure, but this happened 9 years ago, 6 years before she started, so TC's position was presumably pretty well entrenched. I suppose she could have changed it, but she was a bit busy trying to save the company.

I wasn't sure where the mum was coming from in her statement - was she unhappy about the kids' names being used, or about the money being given to charity?

[johnxjsc1985]

Sheepshanks said:

Sure, but this happened 9 years ago, 6 years before she started, so TC's position was presumably pretty well entrenched. I suppose she could have changed it, but she was a bit busy trying to save the company.

I wasn't sure where the mum was coming from in her statement - was she unhappy about the kids' names being used, or about the money being given to charity?

She was unhappy that TC were using her childrens names without consulting them. Also her husband had asked 6 times for answers from TC but did not get a single reply. I don't think unhappy is the wordto use, she lost both her children she must be shattered beyond belief and to have TC play political games with her dead children is just a signal that they still do not understand what they have done to a family who went on one of their holidays.

[anonymous-user]

12TS said:

Sheepshanks said:

She was became chief exec several years after it happened (didn't work there before) and wasn't there long before being booted out. (Nice work if you get it).

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but there seems to quite a lot of focus on money from the parents, one of whom wasn't even there.

She was there when the case was being handled. Refused to see them, denied any guilt. Then when she gave up her bonus she didn't discuss it with them at all and just released the statement.

I see the parents as the innocent parties in all of this, what coul they have done to prevent the deaths?

Naive to think that they would agree to see them or that they would get answers directly from them. Almost certainly, they're legal advice would be to the contrary.

I too wonder why the mother, for it seems to be only she, is pushing this on even now. What does she hope to achieve, revenge?

[johnxjsc1985]

REALIST123 said:

Naive to think that they would agree to see them or that they would get answers directly from them. Almost certainly, they're legal advice would be to the contrary.

I too wonder why the mother, for it seems to be only she, is pushing this on even now. What does she hope to achieve, revenge?

did you actually listen to what she said?

[havoc]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Sure, but this happened 9 years ago, 6 years before she started, so TC's position was presumably pretty well entrenched. I suppose she could have changed it, but she was a bit busy trying to save the company.

I wasn't sure where the mum was coming from in her statement - was she unhappy about the kids' names being used, or about the money being given to charity?

She was unhappy that TC were using her childrens names without consulting them. Also her husband had asked 6 times for answers from TC but did not get a single reply. I don't think unhappy is the wordto use, she lost both her children she must be shattered beyond belief and to have TC play political games with her dead children is just a signal that they still do not understand what they have done to a family who went on one of their holidays.

This.

TC have failed to engage them in any positive way unless they saw a political benefit to it, despite being found guilty. And then the CEO tries to generate positive publicity for herself by tying her 'donation' (blood money?!?) to the deaths without consulting the family first.

Either TC have a piss-poor PR department and they're all very naive about the way they've been going about things, or they deserve every bit of negative publicity they get - one of the nations biggest travel 'brands' and it's tried to duck responsibility here at every turn...REALLY doesn't give you any confidence, does it?!?

Whilst there does appear to be an element of 'McCann-ness' or monetary motivation in the family's actions, I'm still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here - TC aren't acting honorably behind the scenes, only showing a veneer of it in public.

[Sheepshanks]

havoc said:

And then the CEO tries to generate positive publicity for herself by tying her 'donation' (blood money?!?) to the deaths without consulting the family first.

She isn't the CEO - she was "let go" 6 months ago. She's spent most of her working life (before TC) in the same industry as me and she has a reputation as a very tough person. For both those reasons her giving away £millions is somewhat surprising.

havoc said:

Either TC have a piss-poor PR department and they're all very naive about the way they've been going about things, or they deserve every bit of negative publicity they get - one of the nations biggest travel 'brands' and it's tried to duck responsibility here at every turn...REALLY doesn't give you any confidence, does it?!?

Whilst there does appear to be an element of 'McCann-ness' or monetary motivation in the family's actions, I'm still inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here - TC aren't acting honorably behind the scenes, only showing a veneer of it in public.

I stopped using package holiday companies years ago - they're all useless if something goes wrong. But it can be difficult for publically quoted companies to do the right thing - they're legally obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders, so taking responsibility for the deaths may not have been considered to be a smart move. Although with hindsight, if they'd done that early on it wouldn't be in the public eye now.

[12TS]

Sheepshanks said:

I stopped using package holiday companies years ago - they're all useless if something goes wrong. But it can be difficult for publically quoted companies to do the right thing - they're legally obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders, so taking responsibility for the deaths may not have been considered to be a smart move. Although with hindsight, if they'd done that early on it wouldn't be in the public eye now.

With the benefit of hindsight shareholder best interest may be the same as doing the right thing with family. TCs reputation is being trashed by these events.

And anyway. How much would it have cost to quickly admit liability and pay up rather than fight?

[johnxjsc1985]

12TS said:

With the benefit of hindsight shareholder best interest may be the same as doing the right thing with family. TCs reputation is being trashed by these events.

And anyway. How much would it have cost to quickly admit liability and pay up rather than fight?

doing the right thing always pays off in the long run. this is a classic example of knowing what needs to be done but being advised by "Lawyers" has made it a PR disaster. You cannot talk your way out of an incident where two Children died. They need to meet with the parents and agree a way forward and I dont believe for one second its about money.