Travel via the Middle East is an increasing legal and safety challenge for passengers and travel companies
Travel agencies, tour operators and airlines are facing increased legal risks when they offer or allow passengers itineraries that include stopovers in the Middle East, especially if the transit takes place through areas for which official travel warnings exist. Travel law experts warn that such cases can no longer be viewed only as an operational problem for airlines or as a matter of passengers' personal choice. According to a Travel Weekly report, legal experts particularly warn that signed liability waivers, by which passengers would confirm that they understand the risk, may not necessarily protect companies from later compensation claims. In practice, this means that a travel intermediary or tour operator may be exposed to complaints if it turns out that the passenger was not clearly, promptly and fully informed about the risks of transit. The issue is additionally sensitive because many major international itineraries still rely on airports in the Gulf and the wider Middle Eastern area as important stopover points between Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.
Transit is no longer treated as a neutral zone
The key change in risk assessment relates to the fact that official travel warnings increasingly explicitly include transit, and not only staying in a country. Australia's Smartraveller, the official service of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, states in its latest guidance that the "do not travel" recommendation also applies to transits and stopovers in affected locations. According to that notice, passengers are advised not to use such countries even as transit points, even when they do not plan to leave the airport. Smartraveller warns that airspace may close at short notice, that flights may be suddenly changed or suspended and that borders may close without enough time for passengers to prepare. Such wording is important because it directly challenges the widespread assumption that changing planes in an airport's international transit area is legally and in terms of safety significantly different from entering the country.
A similar approach is also visible in the recommendations of the travel sector in the United Kingdom. ABTA, the British association of travel agencies and tour operators, has stated that the advice of the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office against all but essential travel may also apply to routes that include transit through such areas. According to ABTA, the fact that an individual flight is still operating does not automatically mean that the journey is safe, advisable or legally straightforward to sell as part of a travel package. The association also warns that travel insurance may be called into question if a passenger knowingly travels to or through a country for which an official warning applies. This means that responsibility does not remain only with the passenger, but raises the question of how much the travel agency had to know, what it had to explain and what alternative it could have offered.
Why liability waivers are disputed
In travel practice, a statement is sometimes used by which the passenger confirms that he or she accepts a certain risk, but legal experts warn that such a document is not a magic shield for the company. According to Travel Weekly, the problem arises when passengers are asked to sign after they have already paid for the trip, when they have not been given a realistic alternative or when the consequences of the official warning have not been clearly explained to them. In such circumstances, a passenger could later claim that he or she was not in an equal position, that he or she did not understand the full scope of the risk or that he or she was placed in a situation in which the choice was between losing money and accepting an unsafe itinerary. Legal issues become further complicated if the arrangement was sold as a package holiday, because in that case the organizer has broader obligations than an intermediary who merely sold an airline ticket. A particularly sensitive element is the moment at which the seller learned or should have known that official recommendations had changed.
Travel companies therefore cannot rely only on general terms and conditions or on a short note in the booking system. If, at the time of sale or before departure, there was credible official information that transit through a certain country was risky, the agency may be expected to actively warn the passenger. This includes clear communication about whether the warning applies only to certain areas or to the entire country, whether it applies to transit, what the consequences are for insurance and what the passenger's rights are if he or she does not want to continue the journey. In complex itineraries, for example when several flights by different carriers are connected through the same hub, an additional problem is determining who is responsible for informing and assisting the passenger. That is precisely why experts speak of a "legal minefield", because the same travel plan can raise questions of safety, insurance, contractual liability, the right to a refund and the duty of care toward the passenger.
Disruptions in air traffic have global consequences
The International Air Transport Association IATA announced that the conflict that began on 28 February 2026 forced airlines to cancel flights to and from the Middle East at very short notice, with a serious impact on regional connectivity. According to IATA data, in the first ten days after the start of the attacks, 73 percent of available seat-kilometres on routes to and from the Middle East were cancelled. Corridors toward the Asia-Pacific region were particularly affected, showing how quickly a crisis in one region can disrupt travel on other continents. For passengers who are not travelling to the Middle East, but only through it, this means longer routes, changed connections, higher prices for alternative tickets and greater uncertainty about returning. For travel companies, however, this means that risk assessment must not end with checking the final destination, but must include every point of the journey.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority CAA stated in earlier guidance to passengers that many passengers were experiencing travel disruption between the Middle East and the United Kingdom due to the situation in the region. The CAA recommended that passengers check Foreign Office advice and confirm their flight status with the airline before going to the airport. The same guidance stated that passenger rights differ depending on the place of departure, the airline and the applicable legislation. Such a difference is particularly important in the case of connections, because a passenger may have one ticket, several connected flights or separate bookings, and the legal consequences are not always the same. If the disruption is caused by extraordinary circumstances, such as a security crisis or airspace closure, the right to additional financial compensation may be limited, but the obligation to inform, provide care and offer an alternative often remains relevant.
Passenger rights depend on the type of booking
In the European Union and for travel connected with European carriers, rules on air passenger rights apply, including the obligation for the airline, in the event of cancellation, to offer a refund or rerouting under prescribed conditions. According to information from the European Union's Your Europe portal, passengers in the event of a cancelled flight, denied boarding or a long delay have the right to receive information about the rules for compensation and assistance. However, the question of additional financial compensation is more complex when the carrier invokes extraordinary circumstances that it could not avoid. For that reason, it is crucial for the passenger to distinguish the right to a refund or alternative transport from the right to compensation, because these rights are not always assessed according to the same criteria. In practice, it is also important whether the flights were purchased in a single booking or separately, because separate tickets may mean that the passenger bears part of the risk of a missed connection.
For package arrangements, the legal picture may be different because the responsibility of the tour operator usually includes a broader set of obligations toward the passenger. ABTA states that passengers have different rights depending on whether they booked a package holiday, a standalone flight, a service through an intermediary or transport with an airline outside the United Kingdom and the European Union. If the organizer cancels the trip due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, the passenger can generally expect a refund of the amount paid, ABTA states in its explanations. But if the flight is not formally cancelled and the official warning applies to the transit point, the dispute may shift to the question of whether the journey should have remained on offer in its original form at all. It is precisely in this grey zone that the greatest legal risks arise for agencies and tour operators.
Insurance can be decisive, but it is not always enough
Travel insurance should not be viewed as an automatic solution for all costs caused by a security crisis. MoneySavingExpert warns that travelling against official advice can affect the validity of travel insurance, with cover varying from policy to policy and from insurer to insurer. The same guide emphasizes that it is especially important to check whether the policy covers cancellation, trip interruption, additional accommodation costs, medical assistance and repatriation in situations connected with war, armed conflict or an official warning. For a passenger who is only connecting in the affected region, this issue may be unexpected, because transit is often seen as a technical detail rather than as part of a safety assessment. But if the official warning explicitly includes stopovers, the insurer could interpret the scope of cover differently.
For travel companies, this means that it is not enough to advise the passenger to "check insurance" without further explanation of why this is important. Professional conduct requires that the passenger receive clear information on how official warnings may affect the policy, but also that no promises are made that the agency cannot guarantee. The agency cannot confirm cover instead of the insurer, but it can warn that cover must be specifically checked for the transit country and the concrete circumstances. If the passenger later finds himself or herself in a situation in which the insurer refuses the claim, the question will be whether he or she previously received enough information to make a reasonable decision. That is why, in current circumstances, written communication, keeping official notices and documenting all offered alternatives are recommended.
What passengers should check before departure
Passengers who have booked travel via Middle Eastern hubs should check official advice for every country through which they pass, including transit airports. According to the recommendations of Smartraveller and ABTA, it is not enough to monitor only the final destination because official warnings may also include intermediate points. It is necessary to check the flight status with the airline, the ticket-change conditions, the possibility of rerouting through another region and the consequences of possible self-initiated cancellation. Passengers should carefully distinguish between a situation in which the carrier cancels the flight and a situation in which the flight still exists, but the passenger does not want to travel because of a changed safety assessment. In the second case, rights may depend on the fare conditions, the insurance policy and whether there is an official warning that covers the route.
Special attention should be paid to connected and separate bookings. If flights were purchased separately, a delay or cancellation of the first flight may lead to missing the second without the automatic protection that the passenger expects with a single ticket. It should also be checked whether the booking includes hotels, transfers, excursions or ferry connections that may be lost if the air portion of the journey changes. In the event of a change of plan, it is advisable to communicate in writing, request clear confirmation of options and not cancel services before checking whether doing so forfeits the right to a refund. In situations that change rapidly, the difference between self-initiated withdrawal and cancellation by the service provider can have significant financial consequences.
Travel companies under pressure to actively manage risk
For travel agencies and tour operators, the current crisis means that the sale of itineraries via the Middle East must be monitored almost in real time. If the official advice changes after the booking, the company should be able to show when it noticed that change, how it informed the passenger and which options it offered. Legal liability will not always come down to whether the journey was physically possible, but also to whether it was reasonable to continue offering it without changes. In circumstances in which official bodies warn that airspace and borders may close at short notice, the standard of care for professional travel sellers becomes higher. This is especially important for vulnerable passengers, family trips, business obligations with fixed dates and routes for which there is no simple alternative.
Wider significance for international travel
The Middle East has for years had a central role in global air traffic because major airports in the region have become key hubs for intercontinental connections. When such a system is disrupted, the consequences do not stop with passengers travelling to affected countries. IATA data on the large decline in available capacity to and from the region show how interdependent international routes are. Airspace closures, capacity reductions and flight rerouting can increase carriers' costs, reduce seat availability and make travel planning months in advance more difficult. For passengers, this means that the cheapest or fastest route is not necessarily the least risky, especially if it includes a stopover in a country with an active warning.
Sources:
- Travel Weekly – report on warnings by legal experts to travel companies due to transit risks via the Middle East (link)
- Smartraveller / Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – official guidance on the conflict in the Middle East, transit and stopovers (link)
- International Air Transport Association (IATA) – data on cancelled capacity and air traffic disruptions to and from the Middle East (link)
- UK Civil Aviation Authority – guidance to passengers on flight disruptions connected with the situation in the Middle East (link)
- ABTA – advice for travel and transit via the Middle East and warnings about insurance and passenger rights (link)
- Your Europe / European Union – overview of air passenger rights in the event of cancellations, delays and denied boarding (link)
- MoneySavingExpert – explanations about travel rights, insurance and disruptions due to the conflict in the Middle East (link)