What do financial institutions and European regulators have in common? Both appear to be key groups of people impacting on the lives of anyone in the GDS community.
Financial institutions are being blamed in part for the temporary collapse of Travelport’s much lauded road to an IPO, having reacted less than favourably during the investor roadshows in recent weeks.
But it is actually the airline alliances that could actually prove to be the bigger threat to the likes of Travelport, Amadeus and Sabre than the suits of London’s Square Mile, New York’s Wall Street or Madrid.
Little known to the outside world, but quietly over the past 12 months the European Union has started to acknowledge that may possibly be a threat to competition and negotiating power of airlines when it comes to the GDSs.
There is growing speculation – evident among some of the higher profile figures at this week’s Travel Technology Europe event in London – that both the OneWorld and Star collectives are now under intensive scrutiny, as the original remit widens.
Until now it has was only a number of the airlines within the groups that attracted the attention of the European regulators – officially, when the original investigation launched in April 2009, it concerned “certain members”: British Airways, American Airlines and Iberia for OneWorld and United, Continental, Air Canada and Lufthansa for Star.
The investigation initially promised to examine pricing, revenue management and scheduling on transatlantic routes, similar to efforts by the Department of Transportation in the US.
An EU official confirms only what is in the publicly available documents and the commission’s stated objectives.
It is becoming increasingly well known in GDS circles and the lobbying community in Brussels that a significant part of the investigation will focus on how the alliances as a group – rather than as individual airlines – may attempt to squeeze the GDSs at the negotiating table when distribution contracts come up for renewal.
There is growing concern that the alliances will attempt to take over the contracting on behalf of all airlines in their portfolios if anti-trust immunity is passed.
Unsurprisingly, GDSs are worried that their always delicately balanced bargaining hand with an individual airline will be diluted if negotiations are carried out an alliance level.
The European Technology and Travel Services Association, which has online travel agencies and all the GDSs as members, says it is watching the situation closely and will assist with the investigation if called on.
EU officials will not give any indication as to the expected time of the next update from the investigating panel.
It does seem somewhat ironic that the very group who have done more to bring oligopoly to the travel distribution market should be worried that the airlines collective power in negotiating should lower their gross revenues. I can just see the European Technology and Travel Services Association, chomping at the bit here. (As an aside this represents a closed shop and doesn’t represent the broad user community of those involved in distribution).
If the EC is truly to investigate the Alliances for some form of restrictive practice then they should look at the issue from the end state. IE that the GDSs themselves are likely guilty of restraining competition in agency marketplace by essentially “buying” business through agent segment incentives. Thus ensuring that consumers – particularly corporations – pay the additional freight.
If the investigation is truly to be widened then there are several other issues on the table.
In my opinion one has to question if there is truly a level playing field in the EC administerred area (which remember is bigger than just the EC) with more than 50% of the legacy carriers (who are members of the alliances) and their distribution going through GDSs. Then there is also an issue of the latter subsidizing incentives from carriers who are less able to get good deals and consequently pay higher PCA based fees to those who have market power and can negotiate better terms and pay less GDS fees. This cross fertilization of the weaker to pay for the (effectively) subsidies that the GDSs pay to the agents should be an item of investigation.
In my opinion – the GDSs are as guilty of raising the cost of distribution through the “drug” of incentive fees. If there was ever a restrictive practice that would be it. It results in direct additional costs for the end consumer – particularly corporates. That should be a strong case for broadening the investigation to the GDSs themselves.
The old adage of be careful for what you wish for applies here. If the GDSs are truly praying for fairness, perhaps they should look in their own houses first.