If playback is interrupted, you can restart it.
Opinion | Based on the prepared keynote speech of DRV President Albin Loidl for the October 15, 2026, DRV Capital Congress in Berlin.
Germany’s travel industry is reporting summer growth, but a weakening winter booking outlook raises a more uncomfortable question: Who can still afford a holiday? In his prepared address for the German Travel Association’s capital congress, DRV President Albin Loidl calls for lower aviation costs, less bureaucracy, modern vocational training, and investment in sustainable transport. His central message is straightforward: holidays must remain affordable, and travel businesses need room to adapt.
The speech is both a warning and a lobbying agenda. Its strongest argument is that tourism’s economic importance cannot protect it from declining consumer confidence. Its greatest challenge is proving that relief for businesses will also deliver meaningful benefits for travelers.
Growth conceals a warning
According to the figures presented in Loidl’s manuscript, the still-running summer season shows revenue growth of four percent and two percent more travelers than the previous year. For the full tourism year, he anticipates revenue growth of three percent.
Winter bookings tell a different story: revenue is down two percent, while traveler numbers are six percent lower at the reporting point.
These are booking snapshots, not final results. Nevertheless, the gap deserves attention. Revenue can look relatively resilient while fewer people travel. Higher spending per customer can support industry turnover without demonstrating that holidays remain accessible to a broad public.
Loidl asks the question directly:
“Who can still afford a holiday—or even several holidays a year?”
For an industry accustomed to celebrating demand, this is an important change of emphasis. The issue is no longer simply whether Germans want to travel. It is whether household budgets allow them to act on that desire.
An appeal to government—and to the industry itself
Loidl’s message to the federal government is explicit:
“Holidays must remain affordable, and companies need tangible relief.”
He calls for functioning infrastructure, affordable energy, further digitalization, and a decisive reduction in bureaucracy.
These demands will sound familiar to almost every German business association. What makes them relevant to tourism is the industry’s interconnected structure: travel agencies, tour operators, airlines, technology providers, insurers, and destinations depend on one another.
Pressure at one point can spread throughout the customer’s journey.
Yet Loidl does not place all responsibility on politicians. He also urges businesses to invest, change processes, adopt technology, and develop their business models.
That balance gives the speech credibility. Government can improve operating conditions, but it cannot make an outdated travel business competitive merely by reducing its paperwork.
Cheaper aviation needs a consumer test
Loidl welcomes a reduction in Germany’s aviation tax and demands its complete abolition, alongside lower state-imposed fees and charges.
His argument connects international air services with tourism, business travel, and Germany’s wider economic competitiveness. Personal meetings, he maintains, support international commercial relationships.
There is a legitimate policy question here: how can Germany maintain useful connectivity while managing the costs and environmental consequences of aviation?
But abolishing a tax does not automatically guarantee cheaper tickets. Airlines determine fares in a competitive market, and savings can strengthen margins as well as reduce prices.
If affordability is the political justification, travelers should be able to see the benefit. The industry’s case would be stronger with measurable commitments and evidence showing how lower costs improve fares, routes, or service.
Consumer protection is also a competitive advantage
One of the speech’s most consequential demands concerns the German Travel Security Fund, the DRSF.
The fund has independently confirmed that its annual fee will fall from 0.5 percent to 0.25 percent of the relevant prior-year package-travel turnover on November 1, 2026. Loidl welcomes that reduction but calls for a further cut to zero. drsf.reise
Reducing unnecessary financial burdens is reasonable. However, the appropriate contribution level must depend on the fund’s resilience and obligations, rather than on the attractiveness of a zero-fee headline.
Loidl himself says Germans increasingly value the security and advantages of package holidays. That security is part of the product’s commercial appeal.
His formulation is sound:
“Consumer protection and competitiveness must not be played off against each other.”
The practical test is whether travelers retain dependable protection while companies pay a proportionate price for providing it.
Where lobbying deserves scrutiny
Loidl presents several outcomes in European package-travel negotiations as successes for the industry. In his account, proposals concerning mandatory out-of-court dispute resolution, extraordinary circumstances at a traveler’s place of residence, and certain travel-warning-related cancellation rights were avoided.
These are the association’s descriptions of negotiating outcomes, not a substitute for examining the final legislation.
They also expose a tension within the speech. A provision that businesses consider an excessive burden may look like an essential safeguard to a traveler facing uncertainty.
Similarly, Loidl criticizes proposals requiring reimbursement of intermediary fees following flight cancellations. Agencies may argue that they have already performed their service. Customers may ask why they should pay a booking-related charge for a flight that never operates.
A credible tourism policy must address both experiences.
The most forward-looking demand concerns people
Perhaps the strongest section of Loidl’s address concerns vocational training.
He says the training framework for tourism professionals is now 15 years old, while artificial intelligence, digitalization, and changing customer behavior have transformed the work.
Crucially, he does not propose simply replacing old course material with fashionable lessons about AI or social media. He asks what tomorrow’s employees will actually need to do.
That is the right question.
Travel professionals increasingly need to assess information, explain complex conditions, manage disruptions, and support customers when automated systems fail.
Loidl also warns that declining trainee numbers threaten vocational-school structures. If that infrastructure weakens, rebuilding it will require more than a recruitment campaign.
AI and sustainability require practical commitments
Loidl recognizes AI as an opportunity but warns against technological power becoming market power that restricts competition.
For smaller agencies, that concern is real enough to merit attention: adopting digital tools should strengthen their customer relationships and expertise, rather than increase dependence on dominant platforms.
On sustainability, he calls for greater availability of sustainable fuels for aviation and cruising, investment certainty, and technologies that businesses can use economically.
His argument that regulation alone cannot supply the necessary infrastructure is persuasive. Nevertheless, the industry’s commitment should also be judged through measurable progress. Calls for political support need to accompany clear reporting on emissions reductions and investment.
A speech that asks the right question
Loidl’s address deserves attention because it connects tourism’s future with affordability, skills, technology, consumer confidence, and Germany’s international reach.
Its central warning extends beyond travel businesses: growing turnover does not necessarily mean more people can participate.
Leave a Comment