Let me be blunt: the issue of repatriation costs is becoming one of the most explosive in the industry. What's at stake between Seto, Selectour, and TourCom goes far beyond a simple technical debate. We're facing a head-on clash between production and distribution. And at the heart of it all is a simple question: who's going to pay?
Summary
Repatriation costs: a bill exceeding 6 million euros
It all started with a speech by Patrice Caradec , president of Seto, at the forum organized in Tetouan. The tone was set: "We spend without counting, but afterwards we'll have to do the accounts."
According to the trade press, the bill for repatriating clients stranded in the Middle East by the crisis could exceed six million euros. This substantial sum has prompted the French travel agency association, Seto, to reopen a sensitive issue: cost-sharing.
The union relies on the Tourism Code and the concept of shared responsibility to consider the participation of travel agencies. This interpretation was immediately contested by the networks.
Selectour refuses to pay the repatriation costs
Selectour's reaction was immediate and unambiguous. In an internal letter signed by Laurent Abitbol and Natale Scaglia , the network clearly rejected this direction.
"In the context of the current crisis linked to the war in the Middle East, we have learned that discussions underway at the Seto seminar are considering making travel agencies bear 50% of the costs of repatriating clients," they write.
The response is clear: "We wish to express our complete opposition to this approach." And above all: "Neither our responsibility nor our role justifies our involvement in this matter.".
Laurent Abitbol goes even further, according to the specialized press: "It would have been more elegant to address this subject face to face [...] it is not a subject to be addressed in plenary session.".
What I see here is a very clear red line: the agencies refuse to take on a financial role in these crisis situations.
TourCom is also opposed… but leaves a door open
TourCom's stance is equally firm, but more strategic. Richard Vainopoulos also refuses an automatic sharing of repatriation costs.
Its interpretation differs from that of Seto: co-responsibility concerns information on the agency side, the rest being the responsibility of the producer.
But unlike Selectour, he offers a more nuanced perspective. "Tour operators stepped up during the war in the Middle East. We were then able to reach an agreement with them on sharing the costs," he explains.
And he sends a very clear message to others: "We are going to make some important financial decisions." Translation: some costs could be recovered in another way.
A legal ambiguity that fuels the conflict
The issue of repatriation costs is becoming so tense because the legal framework remains open.
The Tourism Code does stipulate obligations in exceptional circumstances, particularly regarding accommodation, which is limited to three nights. However, the issue of overall repatriation remains unresolved.
The result: each actor interprets the text to their own advantage.
Patrice Caradec has also confirmed this: Seto wants to put the subject back on the table, consult a lawyer and open discussions with the networks.
An unprecedented power dynamic in tourism
What I find particularly interesting is the timing. This debate is taking place in a context of geopolitical crisis, with large sums of money involved and decisions made in haste.
But above all, it reveals a structural tension between two models: that of tour operators and that of distributors.
If a sharing of repatriation costs becomes necessary tomorrow, it directly impacts the profitability of travel agencies. Conversely, a complete refusal increases the pressure on producers.
In any case, the balance of the sector is shifting.
Key takeaways for tourism professionals
Repatriation costs related to the crisis could exceed six million euros. The French travel agency association, Seto, is considering cost-sharing based on shared responsibility. Selectour strongly opposes this, while TourCom takes a more nuanced stance. The legal framework remains unclear, fueling a major conflict between tour operators and distributors.
Why this topic will continue to rise
I'll be frank: this debate is only just beginning.
It raises a central question for the entire sector: who bears the risk in the event of a major crisis?
And behind it all, the entire value chain is affected. Margins, responsibilities, business model… nothing is set in stone.
This type of tension doesn't disappear. It becomes structured. And those who understand what is happening today will have a head start tomorrow.
Updates
March 2026: Patrice Caradec's statements at the Seto forum in Tetouan.
March 2026: Official position taken by Selectour and reactions from TourCom.
In short
- Repatriation costs could exceed 6 million euros according to Seto.
- The Seto proposes a sharing of costs between tour operators and agencies.
- Selectour categorically refuses any financial participation from agencies.
- TourCom also opposes this but remains open to agreements on a case-by-case basis.
- The Tourism Code remains vague on the concept of co-responsibility.
- The conflict reveals a structural tension between production and distribution.
- This debate could permanently redefine the economic model of the sector.
Sources
https://www.lechotouristique.com/article/frais-de-rapatriement-selectour-et-tourcom-sopposent-au-seto
https://www.tourmag.com/Partage-des-frais-de-rapatriement-Selectour-exprime-sa-totale-opposition_a131108.html
👉 Access all our tourism reports, statistics and analyses on Tourisme Stats .
➡️ Check out our full report on B2B Tourism to discover the key trends, figures and strategies for 2026.
👉 Access Iran war radar . A centralized, continuously updated page to understand exactly how the situation is changing your sales, your customers, and your operations.
👉 Stay informed about business tourism trends: subscribe to InfosTourisme Inside .
📘 Also check out our practical pages for tourism professionals .
📩 Send your press releases .
