The irony of this piece is that it starts and ends with the very concept it complains about – using fear as a tactic.
Davidson is a bright and talented entrepreneur who believes deeply in the power of innovation, so perhaps it is understandable that he would fear anything, however fanciful, that he imagines may threaten innovation.
He says, of course, that he is confident that the campaign he attributes to the Business Travel Coalition will not work, but then devotes an awful lot of words trying to demean it.
In reality, of course, the campaign does not exist - Davidson made it up in order to attack it.
He says the campaign is “designed to rally the travel industry against change, preserve the status quo” so as to “win over real innovation” and so on.
He also refers to “stonewalling and procrastinating until all the standards are worked out.” Finally, he sets up the classic straw man so he can knock it down – some stuff about airlines being forced to pick from a limited menu of “standardized categories” leading a regime in which “GDS create the offer, price it” etc.
In reality, the “campaign”, joined in by corporate customers and the agencies that serve them, is designed to facilitate the distribution of airline innovation in unbundling the air service package so that all consumers can do the following:
Understand what is being offered
Understand the price/service options
Buy through the channel of their choice
The proof of what we say will be evident when a letter is sent to the CEOs of the major airlines spelling out exactly what we are asking for.
As for standards, they are pretty much in place. In fact, IATA has created more than a hundred categories to encompass every imaginable service element and, of course, can create more if needed.
The benefit of standards is, of course, that they help everyone, particularly consumers, understand what is being sold, so our industry does not get a reputation for selling seat assignments that are in fact something else.
We cannot see what is wrong with this. Airlines can combine these elements any way they wish, provided they disclose what they are doing so the consumer can choose what to buy and through whom to buy it.
The exception to all that, of course, is that the Airlines Reporting Corporation cannot apparently complete electronic document systems to fully enable ARC-accredited agents to sell, report and settle ancillary services for some months yet.
Yes, that is the same Airlines Reporting Corporation that is owned and controlled entirely by… the airlines.
If Davidson wants to lay the blame for delays on someone, look in the airlines’ house, not ours.
GDSs and travel agencies are ready to get on with the business of helping consumers buy the ancillary services the airlines want to sell.
Finally, Davidson equates ancillary services and fees as an airline breakaway from the evil commoditization that he implies (using the word “demoted”) was somehow forced on the airlines.
He says ancillary fees are the “way to differentiate their product and service.” But it’s the same old seats in the same planes. The same other “stuff” that has always been there.
Only now the airlines are going to make consumers pay separately for the pieces of what was once a unitary service.
At the end of the day it’s a price increase, finely writ so that each passenger will, in theory, be able to buy and pay only for the pieces he wants. No great miracle of innovation here -- just the awareness of another way to sell.
The distribution system wants to help do this in a way that is consistent with and recognizes the value of existing investments in technology and successful business practices.
The airlines’ best customers are aligned with the distribution system in this regard. It’s about the customer, not the airlines.
NB: This guest post Paul Ruden, senior vice president, legal and industry affairs, American Society of Travel Agents
NB: This guest post is by Paul Ruden, senior vice president, legal and industry affairs,
American Society of Travel Agents.
The irony of the recent analysis by Jim Davidson of Farelogix - Fear and loathing in the airline industry, innovation on hold? - is that it starts and ends with the very concept it complains about – using fear as a tactic.
Davidson is a bright and talented entrepreneur who believes deeply in the power of innovation, so perhaps it is understandable that he would fear anything, however fanciful, that he imagines may threaten innovation.
He says, of course, that he is confident that the campaign he attributes to the Business Travel Coalition will not work, but then devotes an awful lot of words trying to demean it.
In reality, of course, the campaign does not exist - Davidson made it up in order to attack it.
He says the campaign is “designed to rally the travel industry against change, preserve the status quo” so as to “win over real innovation” and so on.
He also refers to “stonewalling and procrastinating until all the standards are worked out.” Finally, he sets up the classic straw man so he can knock it down – some stuff about airlines being forced to pick from a limited menu of “standardized categories” leading a regime in which “GDS create the offer, price it” etc.
In reality, the campaign, joined in by corporate customers and the agencies that serve them, is designed to facilitate the distribution of airline innovation in unbundling the air service package so that all consumers can do the following:
- Understand what is being offered
- Understand the price/service options
- Buy through the channel of their choice
The proof of what we say will be evident when a letter is sent to the CEOs of the major airlines spelling out exactly what we are asking for.
As for standards, they are pretty much in place. In fact, IATA has created more than a hundred categories to encompass every imaginable service element and, of course, can create more if needed.
The benefit of standards is, of course, that they help everyone, particularly consumers, understand what is being sold, so our industry does not get a reputation for selling seat assignments that are in fact something else.
We cannot see what is wrong with this. Airlines can combine these elements any way they wish, provided they disclose what they are doing so the consumer can choose what to buy and through whom to buy it.
The exception to all that, of course, is that the Airlines Reporting Corporation cannot apparently complete electronic document systems to fully enable ARC-accredited agents to sell, report and settle ancillary services for some months yet.
Yes, that is the same Airlines Reporting Corporation that is owned and controlled entirely by… the airlines.
If Davidson wants to lay the blame for delays on someone, look in the airlines’ house, not ours.
GDSs and travel agencies are ready to get on with the business of helping consumers buy the ancillary services the airlines want to sell.
Finally, Davidson equates ancillary services and fees as an airline breakaway from the evil commoditization that he implies (using the word “demoted”) was somehow forced on the airlines.
He says ancillary fees are the “way to differentiate their product and service.” But it’s the same old seats in the same planes. The same other “stuff” that has always been there.
Only now the airlines are going to make consumers pay separately for the pieces of what was once a unitary service.
At the end of the day it’s a price increase, finely writ so that each passenger will, in theory, be able to buy and pay only for the pieces he wants. No great miracle of innovation here -- just the awareness of another way to sell.
The distribution system wants to help do this in a way that is consistent with and recognizes the value of existing investments in technology and successful business practices.
The airlines’ best customers are aligned with the distribution system in this regard. It’s about the customer, not the airlines.
NB: This guest post Paul Ruden, senior vice president, legal and industry affairs, American Society of Travel Agents