Without insinuating they are all a load of blood suckers I believe that inviting the press to listen to you is akin to inviting Count Dracula around for a nightcap. You want the experience to be worthwhile and enjoyable but there is a chance you will have a pain in your neck and the need for a transfusion afterwards.
Never could this more true than in the corporate travel business as recent events at an ACTE conference testify. They willingly invited journalists in to their sessions, tried to slap down an ‘off the record’ mandate and then were mortified when the press did their job. You cannot hold a very public and very large conference and then say everything (bar what we tell you) is a secret.
Reading about this furore got me thinking about my career as a senior in a travel management company and the experiences I had with the press. They were many and varied and I think they highlighted some of the things that are right and wrong in this particular industry. As a result, here are a few thoughts to ponder on.
Who in the travel industry needs the press? We all do yet we go about fulfilling this need in strange ways. You can take it as a given that unless you deal with them right you can get into trouble. Deal with them properly and you will get all that you desire. Bullshit, dictate or threaten them and you get what you richly deserve. Ignore them and you can start wondering why nobody knows about you.
On the other side the press needs you or they have nothing to write about. Simplistic I know but this is something often forgotten. So if you want to be a player in this industry you have to help them and not throw obstacles, smokescreens and dictates in their way. You also need to tell them something useful, not just the samey releases and platitudes that make you yawn let alone them!
I have never known an industry so selectively secret than our own. Many corporations won’t tell you what TMC they use let alone anything about their travel profile or philosophy. Suppliers only want to talk in sanitised clichés about new products and services but become very reticent when it comes to evidence and case studies. Hardly surprising as very often such products are in their early stages or even a hurried reaction to a competitor’s announcement. Hence the so called ‘smoke and mirrors’ syndrome we have encountered over recent years, Just ask yourself how many of those super duper announcements five years past have ultimately turned into anything worth having.
My own experiences with the press were many and varied and I must admit some of them gave our PR departments kittens. But I can honestly say they were both useful and rewarding to me and the companies I worked for. Why? Because I told them’ like it is’ but in a way that gave us credibility and, hopefully, respect. There is nobody better to have on you side than a journalist who believes in you and nobody worse than one who feels patronised and used.
What advice would I give? The following might help:
Never give a journalist a story and expect him not to use it. It is not in his nature.
Never give them something unsubstantiated and boring and expect publication.
Treat them as the valuable marketing tool they are not as a company stooge.
Stop being so darn secretive. If you got it then flaunt it.
Never treat them or their readers as idiots (American Airlines take note).
If you invite them around do not let them bite your neck! I suggest you try providing high quality ‘blood bags’ of information that are digestible and tasty!
Showing posts with label American Airlines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Airlines. Show all posts
Monday, October 10, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
What happens when TMCs become GDS
It must happen to a greater or lesser extent if American Airlines create a model that succeeds and then gets rolled out across the industry. The only way that TMCs will be able to give their customers what they want will be to direct connect with every key supplier and, as such, become mini specialist GDS in their own right. It will cost them a lot in time, resource and money despite what some AA loyalists say and you can bet your bottom dollar they will want it back with interest.
So how will such an event impact the balance of power in the travel supply chain? I think it will affect it significantly. Obviously the GDS will not simply sit back and let it happen and I am sure there is intense discussion and negotiation going on as I write.
However let us just pause for a minute and reflect on the following statements:
1) Despite airlines best efforts the TMC world still has considerable value to their corporate clients and will be hard to dislodge unless they do all the things TMCs do.
2) TMCs have been preparing their own strategies by building their own booking platforms that can be directed to be very specific on what choices they offer.
3) If airlines direct connect to these platforms they may be stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as power balance is concerned.
The GDS are too darn expensive and working with a defunct, unjustifiable pricing model. I think many of us believe that and I can see why airlines are getting sick of paying sector fees even for cancellations and suchlike. The only thing is that GDS have a value to them and this value may be provided by TMCs in future. If you receive a value you can expect it to cost you as the TMCs will not give such distribution capability away for nothing. On top of that they will have their own platforms overlaying it which will allow dynamic pricing and availability control.
My message to airlines is to look at the broader implications of their actions. Remember how some thought GDS were great to own once. And how ownership, encouragement and support of OTAs were expected to reduce not increase cost. Not a great track record so far so look at your next step very carefully!
So how will such an event impact the balance of power in the travel supply chain? I think it will affect it significantly. Obviously the GDS will not simply sit back and let it happen and I am sure there is intense discussion and negotiation going on as I write.
However let us just pause for a minute and reflect on the following statements:
1) Despite airlines best efforts the TMC world still has considerable value to their corporate clients and will be hard to dislodge unless they do all the things TMCs do.
2) TMCs have been preparing their own strategies by building their own booking platforms that can be directed to be very specific on what choices they offer.
3) If airlines direct connect to these platforms they may be stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as power balance is concerned.
The GDS are too darn expensive and working with a defunct, unjustifiable pricing model. I think many of us believe that and I can see why airlines are getting sick of paying sector fees even for cancellations and suchlike. The only thing is that GDS have a value to them and this value may be provided by TMCs in future. If you receive a value you can expect it to cost you as the TMCs will not give such distribution capability away for nothing. On top of that they will have their own platforms overlaying it which will allow dynamic pricing and availability control.
My message to airlines is to look at the broader implications of their actions. Remember how some thought GDS were great to own once. And how ownership, encouragement and support of OTAs were expected to reduce not increase cost. Not a great track record so far so look at your next step very carefully!
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Evolution of Air Distribution – The Story so Far
Now you are going to need to bear with me on this. Blogs are supposed to be brief and incisive but this one won’t. I just think that perhaps too many people assume that everyone knows about air distribution history and, by extension, fully understands the dynamics in play. I am not sure this is the case (why should they) so here is my understanding of how we got to where we are now.
It would take a book not a blog to go into the full detail and rationale so I will content myself and your patience by picking out the key players and change milestones in what will be a summary of what has happened and who are the movers and shakers. I think the customer needs to know the basics especially as they are ultimately paying unless they can do without at least one of the current cogs in the distribution mechanism.
Initially there was not much of an issue. The airlines worked in concert with each other and their supply chain and basically paid for everything required to distribute their product. They paid merchant fees to card companies, commission to agents (no such things as TMCs then) and fees to the GDS. Having picked up all these tabs they then sold their tickets with these costs built in to their fares. All of them did it so there was no problem Simple and reasonably effective in a well regulated, stable and growing travel market where little true competition existed.
As an example (and it varies hugely by area) airlines paid agents 10% commision and between 3 to 30% override, 1.5-3% card fees and 4% to 6% GDS charges.All of that bundled into the end ticket price.
Then things changed. Airlines expanded their route structures and became far more competitive with each other. The first sign of change was when ticket prices started to diversifyfrom airline to airline. In order to attract increasingly fickle travellers a fare differentiation was required. Carriers moved away from simply discounting their standardised global gross fare pricing and introduced corporate nets, yield managed specials and additional one-off deals.In one class alone you could end up with over a dozen fares each with their own restrictions and availability allocations.
The result was twofold. Firstly the ability to interchange tickets between airlines disappeared and secondly the need to mitigate pricing concessions made them look harder at their costs. Their distribution costs to be precise.
They found themselves in a real dilemma. The need to compete and discount was obviously threatening their profits (what there were) and simultaneously two other things happened. Low cost carriers with a totally different price model arrived who had to worry far less about convenience, timetables, airport locations and service which in turn encouraged corporations to view travel in a far more commoditised way. So, on one side they had to compete with carriers with a considerably lower cost base/tariff and on the other, a customer with a much harder stance towards price.
What became clear was that they could not continue paying the full cost of distributing their products whilst competing with new entrant pricing combined with more savvy buyers.Something had to give and what ‘gave’ was the air distribution model. After all, if you cannot beat the no frills airlines and professional buyers then the only option was to join them and challenge elsewhere in the travel merry-go- round.
I think their objectives were a mixture between the sound and the inevitable. The markets had clearly changed and if the end customer really wanted transparency and a lower cost model then give it to them. Whether they really wanted or needed it in the first place is a discussion for another day. Many of the arguments today are revolving around the desire for commoditisation coming head to head with the necessity for flexibility and uniformity of information and access.
There is another key influencing factor which is technology. Part of the reason why the main airlines feel both desirous and capable of change is that, for the first time there are other potential technology solutions out there. That is to say they are there if, and only if, the end users really do expect them to act individually rather than collectively with other provider’s inventory. Hence the current pressures on the GDS who provide all encompassing booking services and charge a high price for doing so. There is no way any individual airline can provide the diversity and product span that a GDS does.
The airlines (individually and at varying speeds) have called time on paying full distribution costs for all services to all customers. Unfortunately I do not see their goal as eradicating such costs. Their objective is to find what they see is the right home for these costs and then try to ensure the savings are not taken away by having to reduce prices to compensate the travellers, who will undoubtedly have to pay. Unless as I mentioned earlier a cog taken out of the distribution wheel. but which one?
So are there any expendable cogs? In some sectors of the market then probably yes. However, only if people recognise what they want and are prepared to accept the consequences and constraints of such. I think the line will be drawn between those corporations that want a controlled, managed and reported programme and others that choose a more deregulated approach where cheapest flights and few management ‘frills’ are acceptable.
If you want travel management you need knowledge and control. In order to do this you need someone to consolidate travel in all forms and package it into controllable chunks from as few sources as possible. At present this is best done through a GDS booking system, a travel management company and a mandated card programme. You take overall control of your travel, accept the price of doing so and form the right balance between value and all the other broader elements that complement your company ethos. Does anybody with a travel programme really want to run around numerous individual online airline sites and compare them when a GDS already does that in a one-stop environment?
On the other side if you want to maximise trip by trip savings there is no reason why approaching the cheapest distribution source and exploiting it until another one comes along is not the right way. To be frank the cheapest booking cost would be by going to an airline direct either independantly or through a TMC which is why carriers like American Airlines, Lufthansa etc are differentiating pricing and availability dependant on where the booking comes from. It does not by any means guarantee that overall trip price will be lower but the reservations element may be.
What I am begining to see happening is that airlines are finally differentiating between varying corporate needs and handling them individually. This part I applaud even though it has taken a long time and has a way to go. They are beginning to see the contrast between travel management and the very different service provided through Online Booking Agencies (OTAs) which, despite all the hype, focus on a different and smaller market that has a different list of demmands. It is this SME market and the OTAs that service them that are taking the brunt of current airline initiatives. The rest will follow.
Before I conclude let me set out the distribution milestones again as I see them:
1) Airlines have mainly eradicated standard agency commission payments but have failed to stop override and incentive payments. Whilst not totally successful it has enabled them to target better those they want to reward to a greater and more productive effect.
2) Agents responded by passing their new costs to the corporations by changing their contracts to management/transaction fees. End result? Most agencies protected their income and some grew it by ensuring remaining income from the airlines stayed with them and not passed on within their client deals. Airlines were forced to reduce prices to compensate customers.
3) GDS/Airline negotiations became far more aggressive. When you look at what airlines have to pay them, even for passenger cancellations and suchlike it is hardly surprising. Some airlines started charging TMCs for certain bookings to gain compensation. TMCs passed these costs on to the corporations but are still incentivised by GDSs which make airlines pretty mad as it is their fees that are funding them.
4) Various airlines changed some of the remaining IATA regulations regarding payment to shorten credit terms with TMCs and escalate penalties for perceived non compliance. A very much hidden cost that again the customer ended up collecting.I find it quite alarming how much cost comes into the chain via IATA and its interpretation of their own rules.
5) Credit/charge card usage has increased because of 4) as individual countries cut agency credit by 50% or more meaning TMC passed on the casflow deterioration to customers resulting in this migration to plastic . Ironic really as this area is very much a top target for airline cost reduction. Cards, like GDS charge wide and varying merchant fees to suppliers and these will be attacked robustly and very soon.
Where will this evolution take us? Airlines will continue fighting distribution costs. Instead of taking them all and then charging travellers through price they will try to dump them and leave the customer to pay separately. Meanwhile they will compensate by offering lower cost alternatives to those prepared to book direct. The battlefronts will be GDS fees, credit card merchant fees, cost of credit, TMC incentives and service deliverables. The customer will get what they say they want which is transparency and a unit price for everything. Currently I do not believe actual cost will go down. It will simply be realigned and will probably go up. If prices go down any further then there will be less suppliers, less choice and devolution not evolution.
It does not make sense that suppliers should pay for everything and then charge a correspondingly high price. Equally it does not make sense that the traveller gets all the bills and tries to negotiate their way out of them. I expect it is the way of the world and will provide yet newer business opportunities but regrettably the same old regurgitating costs.
It would take a book not a blog to go into the full detail and rationale so I will content myself and your patience by picking out the key players and change milestones in what will be a summary of what has happened and who are the movers and shakers. I think the customer needs to know the basics especially as they are ultimately paying unless they can do without at least one of the current cogs in the distribution mechanism.
Initially there was not much of an issue. The airlines worked in concert with each other and their supply chain and basically paid for everything required to distribute their product. They paid merchant fees to card companies, commission to agents (no such things as TMCs then) and fees to the GDS. Having picked up all these tabs they then sold their tickets with these costs built in to their fares. All of them did it so there was no problem Simple and reasonably effective in a well regulated, stable and growing travel market where little true competition existed.
As an example (and it varies hugely by area) airlines paid agents 10% commision and between 3 to 30% override, 1.5-3% card fees and 4% to 6% GDS charges.All of that bundled into the end ticket price.
Then things changed. Airlines expanded their route structures and became far more competitive with each other. The first sign of change was when ticket prices started to diversifyfrom airline to airline. In order to attract increasingly fickle travellers a fare differentiation was required. Carriers moved away from simply discounting their standardised global gross fare pricing and introduced corporate nets, yield managed specials and additional one-off deals.In one class alone you could end up with over a dozen fares each with their own restrictions and availability allocations.
The result was twofold. Firstly the ability to interchange tickets between airlines disappeared and secondly the need to mitigate pricing concessions made them look harder at their costs. Their distribution costs to be precise.
They found themselves in a real dilemma. The need to compete and discount was obviously threatening their profits (what there were) and simultaneously two other things happened. Low cost carriers with a totally different price model arrived who had to worry far less about convenience, timetables, airport locations and service which in turn encouraged corporations to view travel in a far more commoditised way. So, on one side they had to compete with carriers with a considerably lower cost base/tariff and on the other, a customer with a much harder stance towards price.
What became clear was that they could not continue paying the full cost of distributing their products whilst competing with new entrant pricing combined with more savvy buyers.Something had to give and what ‘gave’ was the air distribution model. After all, if you cannot beat the no frills airlines and professional buyers then the only option was to join them and challenge elsewhere in the travel merry-go- round.
I think their objectives were a mixture between the sound and the inevitable. The markets had clearly changed and if the end customer really wanted transparency and a lower cost model then give it to them. Whether they really wanted or needed it in the first place is a discussion for another day. Many of the arguments today are revolving around the desire for commoditisation coming head to head with the necessity for flexibility and uniformity of information and access.
There is another key influencing factor which is technology. Part of the reason why the main airlines feel both desirous and capable of change is that, for the first time there are other potential technology solutions out there. That is to say they are there if, and only if, the end users really do expect them to act individually rather than collectively with other provider’s inventory. Hence the current pressures on the GDS who provide all encompassing booking services and charge a high price for doing so. There is no way any individual airline can provide the diversity and product span that a GDS does.
The airlines (individually and at varying speeds) have called time on paying full distribution costs for all services to all customers. Unfortunately I do not see their goal as eradicating such costs. Their objective is to find what they see is the right home for these costs and then try to ensure the savings are not taken away by having to reduce prices to compensate the travellers, who will undoubtedly have to pay. Unless as I mentioned earlier a cog taken out of the distribution wheel. but which one?
So are there any expendable cogs? In some sectors of the market then probably yes. However, only if people recognise what they want and are prepared to accept the consequences and constraints of such. I think the line will be drawn between those corporations that want a controlled, managed and reported programme and others that choose a more deregulated approach where cheapest flights and few management ‘frills’ are acceptable.
If you want travel management you need knowledge and control. In order to do this you need someone to consolidate travel in all forms and package it into controllable chunks from as few sources as possible. At present this is best done through a GDS booking system, a travel management company and a mandated card programme. You take overall control of your travel, accept the price of doing so and form the right balance between value and all the other broader elements that complement your company ethos. Does anybody with a travel programme really want to run around numerous individual online airline sites and compare them when a GDS already does that in a one-stop environment?
On the other side if you want to maximise trip by trip savings there is no reason why approaching the cheapest distribution source and exploiting it until another one comes along is not the right way. To be frank the cheapest booking cost would be by going to an airline direct either independantly or through a TMC which is why carriers like American Airlines, Lufthansa etc are differentiating pricing and availability dependant on where the booking comes from. It does not by any means guarantee that overall trip price will be lower but the reservations element may be.
What I am begining to see happening is that airlines are finally differentiating between varying corporate needs and handling them individually. This part I applaud even though it has taken a long time and has a way to go. They are beginning to see the contrast between travel management and the very different service provided through Online Booking Agencies (OTAs) which, despite all the hype, focus on a different and smaller market that has a different list of demmands. It is this SME market and the OTAs that service them that are taking the brunt of current airline initiatives. The rest will follow.
Before I conclude let me set out the distribution milestones again as I see them:
1) Airlines have mainly eradicated standard agency commission payments but have failed to stop override and incentive payments. Whilst not totally successful it has enabled them to target better those they want to reward to a greater and more productive effect.
2) Agents responded by passing their new costs to the corporations by changing their contracts to management/transaction fees. End result? Most agencies protected their income and some grew it by ensuring remaining income from the airlines stayed with them and not passed on within their client deals. Airlines were forced to reduce prices to compensate customers.
3) GDS/Airline negotiations became far more aggressive. When you look at what airlines have to pay them, even for passenger cancellations and suchlike it is hardly surprising. Some airlines started charging TMCs for certain bookings to gain compensation. TMCs passed these costs on to the corporations but are still incentivised by GDSs which make airlines pretty mad as it is their fees that are funding them.
4) Various airlines changed some of the remaining IATA regulations regarding payment to shorten credit terms with TMCs and escalate penalties for perceived non compliance. A very much hidden cost that again the customer ended up collecting.I find it quite alarming how much cost comes into the chain via IATA and its interpretation of their own rules.
5) Credit/charge card usage has increased because of 4) as individual countries cut agency credit by 50% or more meaning TMC passed on the casflow deterioration to customers resulting in this migration to plastic . Ironic really as this area is very much a top target for airline cost reduction. Cards, like GDS charge wide and varying merchant fees to suppliers and these will be attacked robustly and very soon.
Where will this evolution take us? Airlines will continue fighting distribution costs. Instead of taking them all and then charging travellers through price they will try to dump them and leave the customer to pay separately. Meanwhile they will compensate by offering lower cost alternatives to those prepared to book direct. The battlefronts will be GDS fees, credit card merchant fees, cost of credit, TMC incentives and service deliverables. The customer will get what they say they want which is transparency and a unit price for everything. Currently I do not believe actual cost will go down. It will simply be realigned and will probably go up. If prices go down any further then there will be less suppliers, less choice and devolution not evolution.
It does not make sense that suppliers should pay for everything and then charge a correspondingly high price. Equally it does not make sense that the traveller gets all the bills and tries to negotiate their way out of them. I expect it is the way of the world and will provide yet newer business opportunities but regrettably the same old regurgitating costs.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Direct Connect – The first significant skirmish in a long campaign.
Christmas is supposed to be a time of peace and goodwill to all men but it also heralds the onset of a new year and, in turn, leads to encouragement of change. This can be illustrated by American Airlines who gave TMCs and their clients an early Christmas present of new cost and selected online agencies (OTAs) in particular to feel their power. The OTAs have started to respond with Expedia pulling American from their inventory. Obviously a lot more complex than that but you got the drift?
Immediately both sides are claiming victory. AA say their volume is growing and Expedia say they are not losing business. Meanwhile the travel world looks on at this test case. People really want to see if an OTA (or any TMC for that matter) can successfully move business or if airlines really can call all the shots. Whoever is perceived as the winner may set a radical trend in the industry and possibly change it considerably. Certainly if AA succeeds then many will follow after them
The trouble is that in reality this test of strength will prove very little in the business travel arena. Reason being that companies like Expedia hold only a pin prick of the worlds corporate travel market and the little they have is mainly towards the lower end in company size terms. In my personal opinion what American has done is picked a soft target to start with. The giant TMCs with their giant corporate accounts would be a different matter altogether. A smaller entity with a different client-base and business model is much easier quarry but one which they can get much tactical mileage from.
For instance how can anyone state at this very early stage that they are wining this argument? American says they grew in December. Big deal. This cannot be zeroed down to success in this dispute. Growth compared to what? Has not economic recovery got more to do with it? How much of American’s corporate market share is Expedia anyway? Yet they sagely point to some meaningless figures.
I do not think there will be any winner in this but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the argument is a precursor to major industry change. Is that so bad? Probably not but with all change there is pain attached. Pain moves around the supply chain as quickly as cost and usually goes full circle. The airline will add cost and work to the TMC, The TMC will go to their clients, increase their charges and tell them why. The big corporate will go to the airlines and mitigate their increased cost by demanding compensation through their deal. The model has changed. But has it really and to whose benefit?
Like everyone else I will watch with interest and try to read between the lines to see where this will take us. As for the forthcoming figures and rhetoric? I will take them all with a pinch of salt and suggest you do the same.
Immediately both sides are claiming victory. AA say their volume is growing and Expedia say they are not losing business. Meanwhile the travel world looks on at this test case. People really want to see if an OTA (or any TMC for that matter) can successfully move business or if airlines really can call all the shots. Whoever is perceived as the winner may set a radical trend in the industry and possibly change it considerably. Certainly if AA succeeds then many will follow after them
The trouble is that in reality this test of strength will prove very little in the business travel arena. Reason being that companies like Expedia hold only a pin prick of the worlds corporate travel market and the little they have is mainly towards the lower end in company size terms. In my personal opinion what American has done is picked a soft target to start with. The giant TMCs with their giant corporate accounts would be a different matter altogether. A smaller entity with a different client-base and business model is much easier quarry but one which they can get much tactical mileage from.
For instance how can anyone state at this very early stage that they are wining this argument? American says they grew in December. Big deal. This cannot be zeroed down to success in this dispute. Growth compared to what? Has not economic recovery got more to do with it? How much of American’s corporate market share is Expedia anyway? Yet they sagely point to some meaningless figures.
I do not think there will be any winner in this but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the argument is a precursor to major industry change. Is that so bad? Probably not but with all change there is pain attached. Pain moves around the supply chain as quickly as cost and usually goes full circle. The airline will add cost and work to the TMC, The TMC will go to their clients, increase their charges and tell them why. The big corporate will go to the airlines and mitigate their increased cost by demanding compensation through their deal. The model has changed. But has it really and to whose benefit?
Like everyone else I will watch with interest and try to read between the lines to see where this will take us. As for the forthcoming figures and rhetoric? I will take them all with a pinch of salt and suggest you do the same.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
A Take on AA Distribution Issues
Isn’t the American Airlines distribution blog interesting? No I mean it without the slightest hint of sarcasm. Obviously it is a propoganda vehicle for getting their point across to all sectors of the market but it does make some good and credible (albeit biased) comment on this key issue.
I find the language they use fascinating as it mirrors their strategy at this particular moment in time. For example they are currently referring to TMCs as ‘Travel Agency Partners’ so one can assume that the very zigzag line that represents their TMC love/hate relationship must be on the ascendancy as they focus on those dastardly GDS. No point in having a go at TMCs and GDS at the same time.
The only downer I have on this blog is that it fails to identify or even pay any lip service to the broader issues and seems rather 'me' centric. What their corporate end customer’s true needs, objectives and arguments do not seem to get much coverage. Perhaps if they focussed more on these and put forward some proposed solutions for debate it might help both their cause and the industry they work in. Mind you this might become a double edged sword as their arguments would need to be compelling.They would also need to think outside their own box which they and most major airlines find far too vexing.
Let me try and give you an example. In the last of their blogs I read on ‘The Beat’ they were trying to say that TMCs choice of GDS was predictable and closely linked to their original owning airline. This is a far too simple assumption and somewhat dated. TMCs choose GDSs for much broader reasons than that although, in the past, there is more credibility in that argument. Now it is more a matter finance, other non air products, trained staff availability, support, global reach, and yes, full content and fares. The GDS have exploited their broader strengths in the markets they were dominant in to maintain that position. They provide things like broader choice, comparison and ancillaries that airlines don't.
Corporates demand that their TMC is kitted out with a booking engine that can provide a total regional and global focussed product for all services including that continental train or local hotel. The TMC responds by searching for a system that meets as many of those demands as possible and then bolts on any extras through their own technology. Preferably a one-stop shop covering as many core products as possible. Not just American Airlines bookings. They need to do this cost effectively and as seamlessly as possible.
What the corporate and their TMCs do not want is to find airlines who cherry pick what fares they put on which GDS thus depriving their travellers from the best prices, availability and choice. Any airline who does this is basically saying that they alone will decide which booking system you will use. Even worse some then impose fee penalties on those TMCs and corporates who have the effrontery not to comply.
So the distribution battle is getting hotter. AA in their blog, are now talking about a test of ‘global’ reach with the GDS. It reminds me of a ‘dare’ game I enjoyed with my friends in the playground all those years ago. I cannot see much benefit for the customer while these two forces slug it out and I am not sure either would come out without a very bloody nose.
Meanwhile what is the TMC doing? Are they just sitting their in a ring side seat or in the corner of their favourite with a towel and gum-shield. No, they cannot afford to do either and you will find the bigger ones are already building alternatives. Their issue is that direct links with numerous different suppliers (there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of them) is a poor but increasingly necessary option to the current few well chosen interfaces, but they need to do it.
One very likely scenario for the future will be the further development and release of these mega multi linked TMC platforms. Sounds familiar? Yes, such an entity is currently called a ‘GDS’.What will that do? It will enable TMCs to put (or deny) whatever content they want in front of whoever they want to see it. It will give them power. It will enable them to go to suppliers and negotiate deals and incentives.Deja vu?
So by trying to destroy one type of GDS the airlines will be creating other, possibly stronger ones. The same way they found removing TMC commissions meant they had to charge lower prices. Good luck to them. I suspect they will need it!
I find the language they use fascinating as it mirrors their strategy at this particular moment in time. For example they are currently referring to TMCs as ‘Travel Agency Partners’ so one can assume that the very zigzag line that represents their TMC love/hate relationship must be on the ascendancy as they focus on those dastardly GDS. No point in having a go at TMCs and GDS at the same time.
The only downer I have on this blog is that it fails to identify or even pay any lip service to the broader issues and seems rather 'me' centric. What their corporate end customer’s true needs, objectives and arguments do not seem to get much coverage. Perhaps if they focussed more on these and put forward some proposed solutions for debate it might help both their cause and the industry they work in. Mind you this might become a double edged sword as their arguments would need to be compelling.They would also need to think outside their own box which they and most major airlines find far too vexing.
Let me try and give you an example. In the last of their blogs I read on ‘The Beat’ they were trying to say that TMCs choice of GDS was predictable and closely linked to their original owning airline. This is a far too simple assumption and somewhat dated. TMCs choose GDSs for much broader reasons than that although, in the past, there is more credibility in that argument. Now it is more a matter finance, other non air products, trained staff availability, support, global reach, and yes, full content and fares. The GDS have exploited their broader strengths in the markets they were dominant in to maintain that position. They provide things like broader choice, comparison and ancillaries that airlines don't.
Corporates demand that their TMC is kitted out with a booking engine that can provide a total regional and global focussed product for all services including that continental train or local hotel. The TMC responds by searching for a system that meets as many of those demands as possible and then bolts on any extras through their own technology. Preferably a one-stop shop covering as many core products as possible. Not just American Airlines bookings. They need to do this cost effectively and as seamlessly as possible.
What the corporate and their TMCs do not want is to find airlines who cherry pick what fares they put on which GDS thus depriving their travellers from the best prices, availability and choice. Any airline who does this is basically saying that they alone will decide which booking system you will use. Even worse some then impose fee penalties on those TMCs and corporates who have the effrontery not to comply.
So the distribution battle is getting hotter. AA in their blog, are now talking about a test of ‘global’ reach with the GDS. It reminds me of a ‘dare’ game I enjoyed with my friends in the playground all those years ago. I cannot see much benefit for the customer while these two forces slug it out and I am not sure either would come out without a very bloody nose.
Meanwhile what is the TMC doing? Are they just sitting their in a ring side seat or in the corner of their favourite with a towel and gum-shield. No, they cannot afford to do either and you will find the bigger ones are already building alternatives. Their issue is that direct links with numerous different suppliers (there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of them) is a poor but increasingly necessary option to the current few well chosen interfaces, but they need to do it.
One very likely scenario for the future will be the further development and release of these mega multi linked TMC platforms. Sounds familiar? Yes, such an entity is currently called a ‘GDS’.What will that do? It will enable TMCs to put (or deny) whatever content they want in front of whoever they want to see it. It will give them power. It will enable them to go to suppliers and negotiate deals and incentives.Deja vu?
So by trying to destroy one type of GDS the airlines will be creating other, possibly stronger ones. The same way they found removing TMC commissions meant they had to charge lower prices. Good luck to them. I suspect they will need it!