Home » News » ABS stats only hint at employment carnage experienced by agencies, says AFTA chief

10 August, 2020

ABS stats only hint at employment carnage experienced by agencies, says AFTA chief

Concerning stats released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) only hint at the current and future employment carnage across travel agencies, according to the Australian Federation of Travel Agents (AFTA).

The ABS released a new set of statistics on Thursday outlining the heavier impact of COVID-19 and the January bushfires had on the travel industry compared with the overall economy.

The data comes from the Tourism Satellite Account: tourism labour statistics, which track the health of the tourism sector over the year to March 2020 and capture the impact of the crises.

It shows that the impact of the bushfires and the beginning of COVID-19 alone cost the sector 21,900 jobs – 74 per cent of which were full-time positions. This is the largest-ever fall recorded by the ABS since tracking of tourism jobs began in 2004.

The number of filled jobs in the tourism industry fell three per cent between March 2019 and March 2020, while economy-wide filled jobs grew by 1.7 per cent

AFTA chief executive Darren Rudd said that, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, travel agents operated close to 3,000 locations nationally and employed 40,000 Australians.

A recent AFTA member survey showed 98 per cent of AFTA’s member travel agents have seen revenues drop by 90 per cent and more as a result of the pandemic.

“These ABS quarterly stats reflect the fact that tourism has been harder hit than the wider economy,” Rudd said.

“However, we know from our member agents that while JobKeeper has been a very welcome lifeline to keep travel consultants working, this situation has already worsened significantly since March.

“AFTA continues to work closely and collaboratively with government and across the business community to find the best path forward that will allow things to start returning to normal while accommodating the necessary health measures.”

On top of pushing for additional support, AFTA is campaigning for the introduction of travel bubbles.

“Only three countries in the world have completely closed their borders: India, New Zealand and Australia,” Rudd said.

“While we understand the health rationale, we need to find a way forward by working together to end this commercial and cultural discrimination and get us travelling again.”

Advertise with us

Despite all the recent challenges, it might be a blessing in disguise for AFTA to have this opportunity to be looking into unfinished issues, ranging from an immediate need to find ways to soften the tension between a growing number of disgruntled customers and the agents over cancellation fees (I suggested a shared liability approach given that both travel agents and their clients are victims of this pandemic destruction) to a much bigger challenge leading the industry recovery initiatives post-COVID-19 from a "clean" perspective. Perhaps it is timely for AFTA to review the fundamental structure of its constitution and see if it still maps to its organizational goals of today. Working under the constraints of a staged release, the idea of secluding itself under the outbound (and some domestic) market banner alone might not give adequate commercial security or an ability to reach out for other opportunities for our outbound travel agents community, particularly for those at the lower end of the ladder. So, is it time now to rethink if AFTA, ATEC, and CATO type of organizations could come together under one industry peak body umbrella while retaining each of the sub-sectoral service specialty within each sub-sector like some other countries? Why is it so unique for us in Australia to house these sectors in their own castles? Is it a fear of dilution of the controlling power? Wouldn’t that give a collective strength to negotiate with suppliers, governments, etc., domestically and internationally for a better outcome? Wouldn’t it more productive especially at times like now to be dealing with broader policy issues relating to consumer affairs? Wouldn't be a more cost-effective usage of front line and back-office staff? lastly, wouldn’t it more effective for the consumer engagement if inbound, outbound, and domestic markets under the same umbrella? It might sound like a bridge too far, but there was a time when AFTA, ATEC, and CATO were all together under one roof (except the Cruise sector which has always been quite distinctive) for a good reason and it worked well until each one started building its own territory. As there is an urgent need to recover from the COVID aftermath, a collaborative approach might be worthwhile considering to see how synergies can be drawn from one another among the outbound, inbound and, domestic sectors (and Cruise) for the betterment of our travel & tourism industry.Regards, Kenton Aldrige

travelcrusaders

Email the Travel Weekly team at traveldesk@travelweekly.com.au

Latest comments

travelcrusaders says:
August 10, 2020 at 5:55 pm
Despite all the recent challenges, it might be a blessing in disguise for AFTA to have this opportunity to be looking into unfinished issues, ranging from an immediate need to find ways to soften the tension between a growing number of disgruntled customers and the agents over cancellation fees (I suggested a shared liability approach given that both travel agents and their clients are victims of this pandemic destruction) to a much bigger challenge leading the industry recovery initiatives post-COVID-19 from a “clean” perspective.
Perhaps it is timely for AFTA to review the fundamental structure of its constitution and see if it still maps to its organizational goals of today. Working under the constraints of a staged release, the idea of secluding itself under the outbound (and some domestic) market banner alone might not give adequate commercial security or an ability to reach out for other opportunities for our outbound travel agents community, particularly for those at the lower end of the ladder. So, is it time now to rethink if AFTA, ATEC, and CATO type of organizations could come together under one industry peak body umbrella while retaining each of the sub-sectoral service specialty within each sub-sector like some other countries? Why is it so unique for us in Australia to house these sectors in their own castles? Is it a fear of dilution of the controlling power? Wouldn’t that give a collective strength to negotiate with suppliers, governments, etc., domestically and internationally for a better outcome? Wouldn’t it more productive especially at times like now to be dealing with broader policy issues relating to consumer affairs? Wouldn’t be a more cost-effective usage of front line and back-office staff? lastly, wouldn’t it more effective for the consumer engagement if inbound, outbound, and domestic markets under the same umbrella? It might sound like a bridge too far, but there was a time when AFTA, ATEC, and CATO were all together under one roof (except the Cruise sector which has always been quite distinctive) for a good reason and it worked well until each one started building its own territory. As there is an urgent need to recover from the COVID aftermath, a collaborative approach might be worthwhile considering to see how synergies can be drawn from one another among the outbound, inbound and, domestic sectors (and Cruise) for the betterment of our travel & tourism industry.
Regards,
Kenton Aldrige
Log in to Reply

abs afta australian bureau of statistics australian federation of travel agents Darren Rudd stats travel bubble