Regulation no help, agent panel reports: Travel Weekly

Regulation no help, agent panel reports

By
|

WASHINGTON -- The commission created by Congress to examine the financial plight of agents finished six months of work by touting the importance of agents' continued survival.

But the nine-member panel also concluded the government should not intervene to help travel agents. ASTA's Paul Ruden was the lone dissenter on this point.

The panel's conclusion may sound harsh, but commission members say their report should be judged as a whole, not solely on the scarcity of its recommended actions.

For example, the report's influence could extend to GDS rulemaking, where commission testimony already has been cited in the Transportation Department's rulemaking notice.

Also, ASTA plans to use some of the findings to make its own case for legislative action next year. And the commission chairman said he's been advised some members may be asked to testify in broader aviation-related hearings in Congress.

"Just the fact that the commission was meeting had some influence," said commission member Anne Mitchell, president and owner of Carlson Wagonlit Travel/Travel First in Starkville, Miss.

"We think it's a good report and will be useful down the line."

None of that, however, can obscure the fact that the National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information and Choice in the Airline Industry essentially decided to take no action on the two agent concerns that dominated the panel's four hearings: Web fare access and Orbitz.

"The commission is concerned about the plight of travel agents but believes that their problems are caused by economic forces that lie beyond the ability of regulation to control," the commission wrote in its report to Congress and the president.

On Web fares, the commission said mandating equal access for agents would require "expensive and ineffective regulatory intervention."

It also concluded that an equal access requirement "could cause substantial injury to consumers by eliminating some low Web fares entirely."

On Orbitz, the commission mostly deferred to the DOT and Justice Department investigations. The commission, however, urged the departments to "seriously consider" forcing Orbitz to eliminate the most-favored-nation clause in its airline contracts.

Under that clause, an airline must provide Orbitz with all the published fares it provides to any other third-party Internet agency or posts on its own Web site, as long as Orbitz matches the terms offered by the other Internet agency.

Three commission members dissented on that point, declaring "there is nothing anticompetitive or harmful with an effort to attract as many Web fares as possible to one Internet site."

The report did include three recommendations.

One involves debit memos.

The commission said airlines seem to have become "particularly arbitrary" in issuing them, and agents need help to resolve the disputes.

The commission wants ARC and the airlines to amend the Travel Agent Arbiter program, established as a separate corporation as part of the 1987 settlement of an ARTA lawsuit against ARC.

Half its funding comes from airline contributions and half from agencies' annual ARC fee.

Kathleen Argiropoulos, ARC general counsel and vice president of travel agency services, said she believes only one debit memo dispute has been heard by the arbiter in the program's entire existence.

The commission noted the program creates a barrier by requiring the consent of both the agent and the airline before submitting a debit memo dispute to arbitration.

It also suggested lowering the cost by letting most arbiter disputes be settled in a paper proceeding instead of through a hearing.

Argiropoulos said ARC has been working to get carriers to agree to new procedures. But the commission wants to get the DOT involved to give the airlines an extra push.

Under the commission's recommendation, Congress would direct the DOT to convene airline and agency representatives and report back within six months on their progress.

That also would apply to the commission's second recommendation: that ARC provide agents a special box on tickets to include their service fees.

Resolving that issue, first raised with ARC in 1995, could be problematic.

U.S. and international carriers must jointly agree to worldwide standards for fields on a ticket, and they've never been keen on the service fee idea.

In its third recommendation, the commission wants the DOT to report to Congress every two years on distribution issues.

Two key principles seemed to have driven the commission's findings.

One repeatedly stated principle is that government intervention would do more harm than good if it would do any good at all.

The second is that consumers have benefited from distribution system changes, particularly Internet information and booking options.

The commission said it "generally distinguished between impediments [to distribution] applicable to consumers and to travel agents" and later added:

"Although we find some information may be more costly for some segments of the industry to access, there exist no significant impediments to consumers' acquisition of information."

Perhaps ironically for travel agents, another factor in the commission's decision against intervention was its belief that agents will adapt and survive.

"I think all of us in the travel business have to realize our world is evolving into a new kind of business, and we have to adapt to that," said commission member Maryles Casto, president and chief executive of Casto Travel in Santa Clara, Calif.

The report included a dissent from Ruden, ASTA's senior vice president of industry and legal affairs.

Ruden said the commission's stated concerns about "the unintended consequences of government intervention" should have been outweighed by "the airline-intended consequences of nonintervention," particularly on Orbitz and Web fares.

But no one joined his dissent, including the three agent members. Asked why, one agent cited concerns that too much dissent would detract from the report's hard-earned consensus, and all three said they felt the report was balanced.

From Our Partners


From Our Partners

MSC Cruises: A Year in Motion — Learn More, $ell More
MSC Cruises: A Year in Motion — Learn More, $ell More
Register Now
Revenue, Retention and Risk: The Business Case for Integrated Travel Insurance Technology
Revenue, Retention and Risk: The Business Case for Integrated Travel Insurance Technology
Read More
Destination Weddings & Honeymoons
Destination Weddings & Honeymoons
Register Now

JDS Travel News JDS Viewpoints JDS Africa/MI