"United’s proposal would effectively end many agents ability to sell space on the airline."
"Under United’s new policy, affected agencies would be required to process all United sales as cash transactions, being left to collect the ticket price from clients on their own, either by cash, check, or by charging a credit card to their own merchant account. This works out well for United...Implementing the program on a larger scale would increase liquidity by increasing the amount of cash the carrier receives from future ticket sales, which in turn helps to preserve liquidity. "
Bone headed decision or brilliant? Are the inmates running the assylum or is UA way out in front on this issue? Once again, UA is willing to challenge some norms as they tried about a year ago with their idea to charge for food on international flights. They had to back down from that ill-conceived policy. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. The idea seems great from an airline's bean counter perspective but could backfire by sending corporate travel agencies looking for other "credit card restriction friendly" airlines with whom to do business. Obviously, most of those corporate agencies are booking highly desirable business travelers. Can UA afford to lose any of these high dollar flyers? In the end, I think this idea will be rescinded too as I can't see any of the other majors matching this policy in the present, dismal revenue climate.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12184 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9934 times:
Not a bad idea.
Let the travel agents cover the credit card transaction processing fees instead of the airline. In other words the airline gets to recover $100 of $100 of revenue instead of giving 2-4% away to credit card companies. It cost United $710 million last year in such charges.
The travel agents are free to pass or build the the fee onto their customers if they wish, as most charge service fees these days anyhow.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Apodino From United States, joined Apr 2005, 2059 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9871 times:
I can't blame them. If you think about it. Travel agents, and to a much greater extent, sites like Travelocity, Priceline, and Expedia, are largely responsible for the competitive pricing environment. If an airline is even 5 dollars more on price, they could very well be relegated to page 4 of the available itinerary for a given city pair. That makes it very tough for them to win business. That and the bulk discounts they sell seats for through travel sites, and they don't recover any of it.
LAXdude1023 From United States, joined Sep 2006, 4432 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9629 times:
Its realitively simple. If UA is the only one doing this, agents will simply put customers on other carriers unless the price is low enough to cover it. Bear in mind most people who still use agencies on a retail level (i.e. not corporate agents) dont really have loyalty to a single carrier. So it would be easy to pass UA up.
LAXdude1023 From United States, joined Sep 2006, 4432 posts, RR: 22 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9612 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 5): The majority of travel agents that UA has started passing this cost along to were ones who didn't do much business with UA in the first place.
To my knowledge, most agencies use a prefered system. Meaning they have prefered airlines (airlines that give them commission, waivers, and nett contracts). As long as UA doesnt alienate them, theyll probably be fine. I know quite a few agencies have UA as a prefered.
RiddlePilot215 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 300 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9510 times:
I'm gonna have to go with United on this one...It just makes good business sense.
Why sell tickets through a middleman you have to "share" the money with, when you can just do it your own damn self?
This isn't the 1970s, most people are competent enough to know how to use a personal computer- open up a web browser, go to united.com, search for flights, and buy a ticket...
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13701 posts, RR: 94 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9496 times:
Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 7): This isn't the 1970s, most people are competent enough to know how to use a personal computer- open up a web browser, go to united.com, search for flights, and buy a ticket...
I know how to do all that and if it is just a simple journey - there and back - I might do it.
But if it is anything more complex, a multi-leg itinerary involving hotels, I always go to a travel agent. Apart from anything else, I usually get very good deals.
ZKEYE From New Zealand, joined May 2005, 187 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9346 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 8): But if it is anything more complex, a multi-leg itinerary involving hotels, I always go to a travel agent.
I couldn't agree more. Added to that when I use a travel agent if there is a problem of some sort I always just drop it in their lap to sort out (within reason). On a trip with a complex itinerary this, in my opinion, makes it worthwhile paying extra for - a good deal is just a bonus. For a simple return trip to Australia I would always book it myself though.
AirFRNT From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2522 posts, RR: 39 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9091 times:
Bear in mind, there may be one more reason United is doing this. United might be trying to avoid a Frontier style meltdown when it's credit card processor decides that United is no long a good credit risk, and increases the withholding rate. If these transactions are cash, it obviously changes the amount of liquidity United gets.
How are refunds/canceled/Insurance credit benefits for flights going to work for the consumer? There are strict safegaurds when a consumer is charged by a airline for a flight.
Bear in mind, there may be one more reason United is doing this. United might be trying to avoid a Frontier style meltdown when it's credit card processor decides that United is no long a good credit risk, and increases the withholding rate. If these transactions are cash, it obviously changes the amount of liquidity United gets.
bingo.
and don't think for a minute that UA isn't testing the waters to see how far the idea can be pushed.... and alot of other airlines and other merchants are watching. UA absorbs credit card fees for any customer only because it has to do so to remain competitive and because it needs that business. If UA succeeds at expanding the idea of the ultimate consumer paying the credit card fees, the whole business model begins to change.
It will also be interesting to watch how this plays out w/ credit card companies who are very protective in the US of ensuring that there is no penalizing credit card transactions by tackng on a surcharge.
Interestinly, in some parts of the world and even in some parts of the US economy, credit card transactions are preferred because they are safe and better than cash.
USPIT10L From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2636 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8826 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4): Its realitively simple. If UA is the only one doing this, agents will simply put customers on other carriers unless the price is low enough to cover it. Bear in mind most people who still use agencies on a retail level (i.e. not corporate agents) dont really have loyalty to a single carrier. So it would be easy to pass UA up.
I remember reading about "screen bias" back in the '80s from airlines like UA and AA, where they would have their flights first in the availability screen so as to get more sales from their res systems. That's been outlawed since then. Honestly, the only people that still use travel agents are older people. I would rather research the trip myself, and then call the airlines/hotels for the best prices. It's so much easier than paying someone to do it.
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 6): To my knowledge, most agencies use a prefered system.
Yes, most agencies use a specific CRS, like SABRE, Apollo, or Worldspan.
Quoting Mariner (Reply 8): But if it is anything more complex, a multi-leg itinerary involving hotels, I always go to a travel agent. Apart from anything else, I usually get very good deals.
I can understand using them as a guide, but I would still do all the bookings myself or with my parent's CC. See above.
Offloaded From Gibraltar, joined Apr 2009, 196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8761 times:
Funny thing is people seem to forget that travel agents only got paid when they sold a ticket. They were the airline's sales force, so on reflection, how much money have airlines saved by cutting off travel agents? Like airline baggage charges. Did you notice your ticket price drop by 7% when your airline stopped paying TA commissions? I didn't. Did your airline discount you $15 because you aren't taking a bag? Of course not, they just added it.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12184 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8740 times:
Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 10): United might be trying to avoid a Frontier style meltdown when it's credit card processor decides that United is no long a good credit risk, and increases the withholding rate. If these transactions are cash, it obviously changes the amount of liquidity United gets.
No has nothing to do with such. Most airlines including United already have various holdbacks.
This exercise was designed to shift away the cost of bearing the processing fee by the airline and it eating into the ticket revenue. Now the travel agent would cover the cost, and airline get the full revenue of the ticket.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Luv2cattlecall From United States, joined Sep 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8696 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): The travel agents are free to pass or build the the fee onto their customers if they wish, as most charge service fees these days anyhow.
Quoting Apodino (Reply 2): I can't blame them. If you think about it. Travel agents, and to a much greater extent, sites like Travelocity, Priceline, and Expedia, are largely responsible for the competitive pricing environment. If an airline is even 5 dollars more on price, they could very well be relegated to page 4 of the available itinerary for a given city pair. That makes it very tough for them to win business. That and the bulk discounts they sell seats for through travel sites, and they don't recover any of it.
...One of the biggest travel search sites was founded by none other than a consortium consisting of CO, DL, NW, UA, and AA... it's their own problem.
Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 7): I'm gonna have to go with United on this one...It just makes good business sense.
Why sell tickets through a middleman you have to "share" the money with, when you can just do it your own damn self?
Except they weren't "sharing" money with anyone in this case. If a pax books a ticket through UA directly, the airline eats the credit card processing fee. The current system with travel agents works exactly like that as well... UA doesn't get any more or any less on a $100 ticket when it's booked through a travel agency, since they don't pay a commission. Travel agents recoup that money with their fees to clients. UA is basically getting grabby and telling the travel agencies to eat the credit card processing costs, whicih I'm sure will cause a drop in bookings from affected agencies.
This will also cause problems for pax, since they'll no longer get automatic insurance coverage, etc from their CC company, nor will they get their bonus miles for using their card, since the payment is made out to Joe's ticket Shoppee....
Quoting United1 (Reply 5):
The majority of travel agents that UA has started passing this cost along to were ones who didn't do much business with UA in the first place.
...I would see that as a widely untapped market in that case. Delta started giving TA's a .5% kickback awhile ago I believe, with great results.
When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
USPIT10L From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2636 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8515 times:
Quoting Offloaded (Reply 13): For the record USPIT10L, at 38, I wouldn't consider myself "older people" but I do use my travel agent regularly, and I have my own credit card!
My apologies. Too late to edit the post! I don't mind planning a trip through an agency, but I don't book through them. That was the crux of my post. I also have a CC, but if my parents are traveling, THEY pay for the trip!
Jmbweeboy From United States, joined Feb 2006, 173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8473 times:
Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 10): Bear in mind, there may be one more reason United is doing this. United might be trying to avoid a Frontier style meltdown when it's credit card processor decides that United is no long a good credit risk, and increases the withholding rate. If these transactions are cash, it obviously changes the amount of liquidity United gets.
How are refunds/canceled/Insurance credit benefits for flights going to work for the consumer? There are strict safegaurds when a consumer is charged by a airline for a flight.
The above post is the first one which understands what is going on here. While one might think United corporate attorneys have ok'd this, consider the following: This move shifts to the travel agents the risk for paying out refunds if United goes bankrupt. While reducing the amount of money United that United has to keep in the bank to guard against credit card chargebacks, it would impose that requirement on travel agents for the first time. Travel agents' banks would have to honor charge back requests that could total billions of dollars in the event of a United bankruptcy. From a Mom and Pop travel agency to American Express Travel, no way that liability could be handled.
Traditionally, the "provider" of the service has been the one responsible for the credit card fee and all liability associated with that. Supposedly this is a "trial baloon" with smaller low producing agencies for United to see how it is received without incurring the wrath of larger producing agencies. The American Society of Travel Agents has already filed complaints with the U.S. Justice Department.
My own opinion is that this a less than well thought out move of desperation on the part of United in their struggle to survive that will quickly fall flat on its face.
United1 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 3161 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8232 times:
Quoting Jmbweeboy (Reply 17): While reducing the amount of money United that United has to keep in the bank to guard against credit card chargebacks, it would impose that requirement on travel agents for the first time.
While I can certainly understand your point and I understand how you came to your conclusion you need to realize that this only effects an extremely small amount of the tickets that travel agents issue for UA every day. The change in the amount of money that UA needs to keep on hand due to its credit card processing agreements is minimal because of this change and quite frankly it wouldn't be worth going through all of this just to get access to that amount.
This is about trying to shift some of the $175 Million a year in credit card fees that UA has to pay.
Jmbweeboy From United States, joined Feb 2006, 173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7958 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 18): While I can certainly understand your point and I understand how you came to your conclusion you need to realize that this only effects an extremely small amount of the tickets that travel agents issue for UA every day.
There is no doubting the "trial baloon" affects a small amount of tickets currently but one would be quite naive to not realize this is United's wish with all agency generated tickets. The reaction of the agency community has been fast and furious. But even more importantly will be the reaction of the credit card companies and the Justice Dept. With regard to the latter, there are different people there now than a year ago and my hunch is any attempt by a mega corporation to come down hard on small business in these very difficult times we live will not be well received.
United1 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 3161 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7850 times:
Quoting Jmbweeboy (Reply 19): United's wish with all agency generated tickets.
Oh absolutely this is a trial to see how it goes but doing this to effect the credit card hold back? The amount of money UA has to keep on hand due to its credit card hold backs is somewhere around $25 Million, it's not worth the effort to get access to part of that amount by doing this.
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3108 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7832 times:
Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 7): This isn't the 1970s, most people are competent enough to know how to use a personal computer- open up a web browser, go to united.com, search for flights, and buy a ticket...
Are they? Many of the self-appointed experts on a.net can't even find their way around Fare Rules & Regulations (but insist they are correct!), so how do you expect the general public to do it, noting how often they are referred to on here as 'having no clue'. Sure, an nice, simple A to B seems relatively easy, but give me a complex itinerary and we'll see how many can book it. Remember, a complex booking [i]cannot[/]i be done on the likes of Expedia, Travelocity, Orbit, or any airline's own website. You're not taking into account such issues as Triangulation Fares, or manual fare calculation, combinability etc., etc.
Quoting Jmbweeboy (Reply 17): My own opinion is that this a less than well thought out move of desperation on the part of United in their struggle to survive that will quickly fall flat on its face.
Qblue From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7600 times:
USPIT10L
Shame on you. You use travel agency to get infromation, use their brain and time without booking with them. They do not get paid to do that, they make their money by booking. You waste their time and talent then walk away to book it yourself. Please leave them alone so they can make time for other customers that they can make money on. United is first and if no big backlash others will follow.
Danild From Mexico, joined Jun 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6976 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 21): Quoting Jmbweeboy (Reply 17):
My own opinion is that this a less than well thought out move of desperation on the part of United in their struggle to survive that will quickly fall flat on its face.
I agree!
It's very simple they are trying to make the Travel Agents pay for their costs, which at least in my Agency is not going to happen. I will just steer customers to a different airline or inform them of this "unaceptable" business practice and pass the extra fee to the customer.
What is next will we (Travel Agents) have to pay for their fuel, and labor costs too???? where does this stop????
In the end it's not even going to matter that much because most agencies have prefferred accounts anyway and will not get affected, but it's very annoying how the airlines keep on attacking the travel agency community.
UAL777 From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1269 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6925 times:
Quoting Jmbweeboy (Reply 17):
The above post is the first one which understands what is going on here. While one might think United corporate attorneys have ok'd this, consider the following: This move shifts to the travel agents the risk for paying out refunds if United goes bankrupt. While reducing the amount of money United that United has to keep in the bank to guard against credit card chargebacks, it would impose that requirement on travel agents for the first time. Travel agents' banks would have to honor charge back requests that could total billions of dollars in the event of a United bankruptcy. From a Mom and Pop travel agency to American Express Travel, no way that liability could be handled.
Traditionally, the "provider" of the service has been the one responsible for the credit card fee and all liability associated with that. Supposedly this is a "trial baloon" with smaller low producing agencies for United to see how it is received without incurring the wrath of larger producing agencies. The American Society of Travel Agents has already filed complaints with the U.S. Justice Department.
My own opinion is that this a less than well thought out move of desperation on the part of United in their struggle to survive that will quickly fall flat on its face.
Highly doubt it. They are trying it with agencies that do little business with UA as it is. Its just another creative way to try and cut costs.
Just say NO to scope relief! In fact, TAKE IT BACK!
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13701 posts, RR: 94 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6810 times:
Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 12): I can understand using them as a guide, but I would still do all the bookings myself or with my parent's CC. See above.
Each to their own.
But my travel agent in Los Angeles has always been able to get me first class for the price of business on almost all my international travels and seems to have a magic way with hotel bookings.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10934 posts, RR: 13 Reply 26, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6877 times:
Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 7): This isn't the 1970s, most people are competent enough to know how to use a personal computer- open up a web browser, go to united.com, search for flights, and buy a ticket...
Many people can't justify the time to compare fares on numerous airlines before booking. That is much easier if you have access to a major GDS system like Amadeus, Sabre, Worldspan etc. You can find the lowest fare much, much faster than on an airline website. And as already mentioned, travel agents can book many complex itineraries that can't be booked on the Internet.
UAL747DEN From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 13 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5999 times:
Many people on here are confused about what we are doing and why so let me try to clarify things.
The current way United deals with ticket sales at most agencies is that when a customer goes into the travel agent and buys a ticket the agent issues the ticket for travel however United does not receive any money for that purchase until a later date (Different agencies have different terms). Basically the agent has what could be considered a short term credit line with United. The agent immediately receives the money but UA has to wait.
With this new plan the agent will be required to make payment to United immediately. There are several ways for the agent to do this, the best way is to just have the customer pay with their credit card. The credit card transaction goes directly through UA rather than the agent and would be processed just like a ticket bought off of UAL.com. The agent can also use their company credit card if the customer does not have a credit card or the agent would rather take all payments using one transaction. Either way United is paid immediately and the liability United has is much less than the traditional options.
Processing travel agent transactions this way is much easier on United for a variety of reasons. With the current system if a travel agent goes out of business the chances of UA seeing the money owed for ticket sales is pretty much zero. United will also be able to cut down of the amount of staff it takes to do billing and processing for travel agents and completely get rid of any billing disputes (Which has its own entire department).
This new system will save United money but not on credit card transaction fees as others have mentioned. Transaction fees will still be there and shouldn't change at all.
FOR THE TRAVEL AGENT, transaction fees should be less because they are no longer having to process the payment, United is doing that for them.
Hope this clears things up!
Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 10): Bear in mind, there may be one more reason United is doing this. United might be trying to avoid a Frontier style meltdown when it's credit card processor decides that United is no long a good credit risk, and increases the withholding rate. If these transactions are cash, it obviously changes the amount of liquidity United gets.
This has nothing to do with with the withholding rate. When we say "cash" we mean that its paid for by cash, check, or credit card. The term cash just means that it is not a credit line given by United.
Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 10): How are refunds/canceled/Insurance credit benefits for flights going to work for the consumer? There are strict safegaurds when a consumer is charged by a airline for a flight.
All of these safeguards are still in place. You have the same safeguards as someone going to UAL.com to buy their ticket.
Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 16): My apologies. Too late to edit the post! I don't mind planning a trip through an agency, but I don't book through them. That was the crux of my post. I also have a CC, but if my parents are traveling, THEY pay for the trip!
When it comes to buying airline tickets I think that travel agents are useless but what you are saying that you do is completely wrong. If you are not able to understand how to plan your own trip and require the assistance of a travel agent you need to pay them. Going to a travel agent for their expertise and not paying is NOT okay.
Pellegrine From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1202 posts, RR: 1 Reply 28, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5776 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27): With this new plan the agent will be required to make payment to United immediately. There are several ways for the agent to do this, the best way is to just have the customer pay with their credit card. The credit card transaction goes directly through UA rather than the agent and would be processed just like a ticket bought off of UAL.com. The agent can also use their company credit card if the customer does not have a credit card or the agent would rather take all payments using one transaction. Either way United is paid immediately and the liability United has is much less than the traditional options.
If I'm not mistaken the CC company is going to withhold payment to United, and all other airlines, until the date of flight anyway. But I can understand UA wanting to cut out a middleman from the payment process.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27): Processing travel agent transactions this way is much easier on United for a variety of reasons. With the current system if a travel agent goes out of business the chances of UA seeing the money owed for ticket sales is pretty much zero. United will also be able to cut down of the amount of staff it takes to do billing and processing for travel agents and completely get rid of any billing disputes (Which has its own entire department).
But will this not increase the amount of disputes etc. that will occur over CC companies? I suppose this is less UA's problem than the CC company, but there will have to be someone at UA to talk to CC companies concerning disputes also.
Non-Farm Payroll = time to gain or lose 100+ pips on my P/L ehh...
UAL747DEN From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 13 Reply 29, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 28):
If I'm not mistaken the CC company is going to withhold payment to United, and all other airlines, until the date of flight anyway. But I can understand UA wanting to cut out a middleman from the payment process.
A percentage is held but using this method after travel is complete the funds will be available just like any other transaction therefore mitigating United's liability.
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 28): But will this not increase the amount of disputes etc. that will occur over CC companies? I suppose this is less UA's problem than the CC company, but there will have to be someone at UA to talk to CC companies concerning disputes also.
I am not talking about credit card disputes im talking about travel agent billing disputes.
ORDagent From United States, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 30, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5106 times:
Travel agencies still have a vital part of the industry particularly when it comes to the corporate travel management side. An agent can massage the pricing system by breaking fares at connection points. Splitting international tickets to take advantage of international currency exchange rates and many other tools they have to get you the lowest price as opposed to web sites that price it in the airlines' favor. If you are doing more than a simple round trip journey internationally a well qualified agent can save you hundreds.
As far as not "plating" the ticket on 016 ticket stock my attitude is simply "whatever". UA has been at the forefront of passing the cost of ticketing onto the agent community starting with slashing commissions years ago. Most agencies have fee structures already. They collect these fees on their own charge accounts with the card companies direct or via the IATA ticketing fee structure. It wouldn't surprise me if one day UA completely pulled out of the IATA fare / ticketing clearinghouse.
The old days of literally putting the airlines' plate in the press to validate that ticket are long gone.
JMBWEEBOY From United States, joined Feb 2006, 173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5091 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27): Many people on here are confused about what we are doing and why so let me try to clarify things.
The current way United deals with ticket sales at most agencies is that when a customer goes into the travel agent and buys a ticket the agent issues the ticket for travel however United does not receive any money for that purchase until a later date (Different agencies have different terms). Basically the agent has what could be considered a short term credit line with United. The agent immediately receives the money but UA has to wait.
With this new plan the agent will be required to make payment to United immediately. There are several ways for the agent to do this, the best way is to just have the customer pay with their credit card. The credit card transaction goes directly through UA rather than the agent and would be processed just like a ticket bought off of UAL.com. The agent can also use their company credit card if the customer does not have a credit card or the agent would rather take all payments using one transaction. Either way United is paid immediately and the liability United has is much less than the traditional options.
Processing travel agent transactions this way is much easier on United for a variety of reasons. With the current system if a travel agent goes out of business the chances of UA seeing the money owed for ticket sales is pretty much zero. United will also be able to cut down of the amount of staff it takes to do billing and processing for travel agents and completely get rid of any billing disputes (Which has its own entire department).
This new system will save United money but not on credit card transaction fees as others have mentioned. Transaction fees will still be there and shouldn't change at all.
FOR THE TRAVEL AGENT, transaction fees should be less because they are no longer having to process the payment, United is doing that for them.
Full of erroneous statements in the above. First, the agent reports his sale of a United ticket through the Airline Reporting Corporation. That sale is transmitted to ARC and then immediately on to United 24 hours after the sale of the ticket. Further, you are way off with your assertion if a travel agent goes out of business, United is stuck.. When a travel agent processes a credit card sale with United or any other airline, not one penny of cash is ever put into his hands. All that occurs is the sale and the transmission to ARC and United 24 hours later of the credit card # to be billed. On a cash sale, yes funds are held which ARC draws up to 7 days later. But that is protected by a surety bond all agents are required to obtain based on their average weekly cash sales over a 52 week period.
Your are obviously not familiar with how ARC works in conjunction with airlines like United in 2009..This is simpy about the provider (United) passing on the its own cost of doing business
USPIT10L From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2636 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5091 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 27): When it comes to buying airline tickets I think that travel agents are useless but what you are saying that you do is completely wrong. If you are not able to understand how to plan your own trip and require the assistance of a travel agent you need to pay them. Going to a travel agent for their expertise and not paying is NOT okay.
That's why you pay a yearly fee to AAA, so you can get road maps and TourBooks for free. Otherwise, I do most, if not all, my travel planning via the internet and state tourism boards who mail their information to you at no cost.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 34, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4495 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 11): If UA succeeds at expanding the idea of the ultimate consumer paying the credit card fees, the whole business model begins to change.
Except, they aren't allowed to do so. The credit card contracts within the USA forbid the companies from passing on credit card fees to customers. Whether it's in the form of a "cash discount" or a "credit card surcharge" if they got caught doing this, the credit card companies would pull their contract and UA would be stuck without the ability to take credit cards.
How do some businesses get away with doing this? They are small (mom and pop/individually owned) and breaking their credit card contracts, but it's hard to catch them in the act. Also, many "cash deals" are on the down low. But UA would be easy to catch in such shenanigans as their policy would be public record, and would end up paying for it.
The only businesses I am aware of that can have a cash/credit price are gas stations with their own captive credit cards. It was very common in the days that a place like Mobil would only take a Mobil credit card or cash, for example, no visa/mc/amex. There are other still gas stations that break the rules and do cash/credit prices on all credit cards, but again, they are on an individual basis, and it's hard to stop them.
What UA is doing here is one step away from breaking the contract. They are basically closing a loophole, where a merchant (the travel agent) is passing on the credit card transaction fee to the supplier (the airline). Now, since many travel agents are small businesses, they may be able to get away with passing on the credit card fee directly to the consumer. But the large companies would have to institute a "service fee" for customers regardless of form of payment. But if customers see a 3% service fee, that will start to get large on large itineraries.
Will be interesting.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
United1 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 3161 posts, RR: 4 Reply 36, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4321 times:
Quoting TBYO787 (Reply 33): This is just a clear indication of an Airlines preparing for chapter 7. Thanks God we dont sell UA at all. No commission, no sell.
Not at all, have no idea how you came to that conclusion. All this is is UA trying something different, if it works expect others to follow.....
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 2203 posts, RR: 1 Reply 37, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4123 times:
I see most are saying for now, this will only affect a very small percentage of actual ticket sales through travel agencies. Others are saying the larger agencies will most likely not have it and steer customers towards other airlines which may hurt UA on a larger scale. If this is the case, why even bother for such a small % of transactions?
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
LAXdude1023 From United States, joined Sep 2006, 4432 posts, RR: 22 Reply 38, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4038 times:
Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 12): Yes, most agencies use a specific CRS, like SABRE, Apollo, or Worldspan.
No no, I mean they have prefered airlines. Some agencies have UA as a prefered, some have DL or AA or CO, etc. This strategy has agents pushing one carrier over others in exchange for a commission or waivers.
Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 32): That's why you pay a yearly fee to AAA, so you can get road maps and TourBooks for free. Otherwise, I do most, if not all, my travel planning via the internet and state tourism boards who mail their information to you at no cost.
Retail agnecies have become sort of a niche market. Alot of their business now comes from complex itineraries (honeymoons, multi-leg journeys, etc.). However since this is where theyve always made most of their money, they arent hurting as bad as people seem to think they are.
Even so, most times at an agency, you get a very similar deal to what you would get online and you have someone doing all the work and a single person to answer to. I handle corporate travel accounts for a living and thats a whole other ball game. They are willing to pay extra to have access to someone 24-7 (a direct contact, not someone in a call center). Corporate agencies will always be around and their role will probably not change very much. Retail (ie storefront agencies) agencies are evolving and doing relatively ok.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 2203 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3910 times:
I've been to many countries and it seemed to me like travel agencies over there were like 7-11s in Virginia Beach; one on just about every corner . But seriously, when internet is at times restricted, limited use or lack of a CC, and other issues, they certainly do serve a purpose. And this isn't only in countries outside the U.S. Same issues here.e
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
USPIT10L From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2636 posts, RR: 9 Reply 41, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3670 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 38): No no, I mean they have prefered airlines. Some agencies have UA as a prefered, some have DL or AA or CO, etc. This strategy has agents pushing one carrier over others in exchange for a commission or waivers.
Sometimes the two go hand in hand. If you're using Sabre, chances are, an airline that uses it is your primary business. In Pittsburgh, most of the old-school agencies ran with Apollo for years until US Airways switched to Sabre. Then most of the agencies did the same thing. I did a brief internship with an agency that used Worldspan, believe it or not. Very unsual in the Pittsburgh market. I have training on both Apollo and Sabre, but haven't used it in eons. That's why I'm working in the hotel biz right now, instead of the airline industry.
DLDTW1962 From United States, joined May 2009, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3677 times:
As a Travel agency owner as well as an agent. I'm sitting here about to explode. The airlines are not paying any commissions to agents at all. Even the international carriers have stop paying commissions. Since that time they have had allot of problems with filling planes. Yes, Price Line, Travelosity. Expedia have help them some but not like the agents did. As most people don't know this. When you book on line you are lucky if you get the price you ask for with the above mention websites. If UA thinks they are going to be saving money, I fail to see
where. If people are going pay using their charge card on UA website. The airline is still going to get hit with a processing fee. So where is the savings at??? It is just another way UA and other airlines are trying to get rid of the travel agent. Do you relize that if it where not for us
travel agents, The airlines would have been charging alot more for their services and tickets.
As far as I'm concerned, UA is going to shoot itself in the foot. With ASTA, The Canadian Travel Agents Assoc, and International Travel Agents Assoc. as well as package tour companies all banding together. We are committed NOT to sell any UA products. If UA gets its way. The agencys and tour companies will be passing $75 to $80 onto the paying public on top of our service fees. In short UA is pricing its self out of business with this move. You notice no other airline is jumping in on this.
UAL777 From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1269 posts, RR: 3 Reply 43, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
Quoting DLDTW1962 (Reply 42): With ASTA, The Canadian Travel Agents Assoc, and International Travel Agents Assoc. as well as package tour companies all banding together. We are committed NOT to sell any UA products.
I checked the websites of ASTA, The Association of Canadian Travel Agents, Association of International Travel Agents, and the International Airlines Travel Agent Network for news regarding this "commitment to not sell any UA products" and could not find ANYTHING. With the exception of the ACTA condemning the move (while still selling UA products) not one other website had a public press release regarding this. Not one.
Just say NO to scope relief! In fact, TAKE IT BACK!
USPIT10L From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2636 posts, RR: 9 Reply 44, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Quoting DLDTW1962 (Reply 42): As a Travel agency owner as well as an agent. I'm sitting here about to explode. The airlines are not paying any commissions to agents at all. Even the international carriers have stop paying commissions. Since that time they have had allot of problems with filling planes. Yes, Price Line, Travelosity. Expedia have help them some but not like the agents did. As most people don't know this. When you book on line you are lucky if you get the price you ask for with the above mention websites. If UA thinks they are going to be saving money, I fail to see
where. If people are going pay using their charge card on UA website. The airline is still going to get hit with a processing fee. So where is the savings at??? It is just another way UA and other airlines are trying to get rid of the travel agent. Do you relize that if it where not for us
travel agents, The airlines would have been charging alot more for their services and tickets.
As far as I'm concerned, UA is going to shoot itself in the foot. With ASTA, The Canadian Travel Agents Assoc, and International Travel Agents Assoc. as well as package tour companies all banding together. We are committed NOT to sell any UA products. If UA gets its way. The agencys and tour companies will be passing $75 to $80 onto the paying public on top of our service fees. In short UA is pricing its self out of business with this move. You notice no other airline is jumping in on this.
I agree wholeheartedly. So much for selling Star Alliance at your office.
UA continues to shoot itself in the foot with every decision they make. Just goes to show you what non-airline thinking can lead to. This is the same train DL went down ten years ago until someone on the board realized their mistake and fixed it (thanks Gerry). Unfortunately, there's no one on the UA board but Tilton loyalists. God help United Airlines going forward.
UAL777 From United States, joined Aug 2003, 1269 posts, RR: 3 Reply 45, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
Quoting DLDTW1962 (Reply 42): Do you relize that if it where not for us
travel agents, The airlines would have been charging alot more for their services and tickets.
That would be a good thing as then they might actually be consistantly profitable!
Just say NO to scope relief! In fact, TAKE IT BACK!
UAL747DEN From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 13 Reply 46, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3541 times:
Quoting DLDTW1962 (Reply 42): As a Travel agency owner as well as an agent. I'm sitting here about to explode. The airlines are not paying any commissions to agents at all. Even the international carriers have stop paying commissions. Since that time they have had allot of problems with filling planes. Yes, Price Line, Travelosity. Expedia have help them some but not like the agents did. As most people don't know this. When you book on line you are lucky if you get the price you ask for with the above mention websites. If UA thinks they are going to be saving money, I fail to see
where. If people are going pay using their charge card on UA website. The airline is still going to get hit with a processing fee. So where is the savings at??? It is just another way UA and other airlines are trying to get rid of the travel agent. Do you relize that if it where not for us
travel agents, The airlines would have been charging alot more for their services and tickets.
As far as I'm concerned, UA is going to shoot itself in the foot. With ASTA, The Canadian Travel Agents Assoc, and International Travel Agents Assoc. as well as package tour companies all banding together. We are committed NOT to sell any UA products. If UA gets its way. The agencys and tour companies will be passing $75 to $80 onto the paying public on top of our service fees. In short UA is pricing its self out of business with this move. You notice no other airline is jumping in on this.
Travel agents have been threatening to not sell different airlines' tickets for years, so far it has yet to happen. Travel agents trying to throw their weight around and tell airlines how to run their business is what made airlines move away from offering their service through the TA's in the first place. When I see a post like yours it makes me realize that travel agents got what they deserved when airlines took their commission away and I don't feel a bit sorry about agencies that go out of business because of it. The airlines realized that letting an outside group be responsible for their sales (therefore their existence) was a very bad idea after the agencies showed how hostile they could be. I have a feeling that what you say is just another knee jerk reaction that will die down in a few weeks. TA's must realize that United and any other airline is doing them a favor by letting them sell their service in the first place. If the agencies and their associations keep pushing the airlines I can see one day the airlines just pulling their service out of the agencies altogether. Where would that leave travel agents? Agents need to realize that they don't really have as much power in the industry as the would like to think.
I do realize that its the smaller agents that are causing the problems. There are a lot of large agencies out there that work with the airlines everyday that would never think of telling an airline that they are going to not sell their service. These are also the agencies that still get incentives from the airlines and are actually valued by the airlines.
LAXdude1023 From United States, joined Sep 2006, 4432 posts, RR: 22 Reply 47, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3460 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): TA's must realize that United and any other airline is doing them a favor by letting them sell their service in the first place.
Its a two way street. TA's give the airlines lots of business at no cost to the airline.
UAL747DEN From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 13 Reply 48, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3439 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 47):
Its a two way street. TA's give the airlines lots of business at no cost to the airline.
Really? You think that if the people didn't go to the travel agent they wouldn't fly? How many people really go to a travel agent that are going to use a different form of transportation and are talked into flying by the agent? People are going to fly with or without the assistance of a travel agent. If all TA's closed tomorrow its really not going to effect ticket sales in any measurable way.
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3108 posts, RR: 14 Reply 49, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3403 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): Travel agents trying to throw their weight around and tell airlines how to run their business is what made airlines move away from offering their service through the TA's in the first place. When I see a post like yours it makes me realize that travel agents got what they deserved when airlines took their commission away and I don't feel a bit sorry about agencies that go out of business because of it.
You're talking complete unadulterated BS, and the sad thing is you don't even realize it in your rush to think you do know. Two examples:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): There are a lot of large agencies out there that work with the airlines everyday that would never think of telling an airline that they are going to not sell their service.
Which one is it.......you just said above that TA's tell airlines how to run their business?
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): The airlines realized that letting an outside group be responsible for their sales (therefore their existence)
TA's have never been responsible for an airlines sales!
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): TA's must realize that United and any other airline is doing them a favor by letting them sell their service in the first place.
You have to be seriously joking with such an asinine comment!! I can quite assure (as you obviously haven't a clue) you that it works substantially the other way around....and I can further assure you that I use the 'ability' when it's required!
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): These are also the agencies that still get incentives from the airlines and are actually valued by the airlines.
I really wish you'd make up your mind about what you only think you know? It's one thing one minute, and a contradiction the next. Are you just covering all bases to be right in one one of them?
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): Agents need to realize that they don't really have as much power in the industry as the would like to think.
And likewise you need to realise you haven't a clue what you're talking about as much as you think you do. You seriously really do need to learn a lot.
UAL747DEN From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 13 Reply 51, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3328 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 49): Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46):
There are a lot of large agencies out there that work with the airlines everyday that would never think of telling an airline that they are going to not sell their service.
Which one is it.......you just said above that TA's tell airlines how to run their business?
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46):
The airlines realized that letting an outside group be responsible for their sales (therefore their existence)
TA's have never been responsible for an airlines sales!
There you go again trying to make you point by only quoting a small part of the post and trying to twist words around to make them work in your favor.
This is my full post:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): Travel agents have been threatening to not sell different airlines' tickets for years, so far it has yet to happen. Travel agents trying to throw their weight around and tell airlines how to run their business is what made airlines move away from offering their service through the TA's in the first place. When I see a post like yours it makes me realize that travel agents got what they deserved when airlines took their commission away and I don't feel a bit sorry about agencies that go out of business because of it. The airlines realized that letting an outside group be responsible for their sales (therefore their existence) was a very bad idea after the agencies showed how hostile they could be. I have a feeling that what you say is just another knee jerk reaction that will die down in a few weeks. TA's must realize that United and any other airline is doing them a favor by letting them sell their service in the first place. If the agencies and their associations keep pushing the airlines I can see one day the airlines just pulling their service out of the agencies altogether. Where would that leave travel agents? Agents need to realize that they don't really have as much power in the industry as the would like to think.
I do realize that its the smaller agents that are causing the problems. There are a lot of large agencies out there that work with the airlines everyday that would never think of telling an airline that they are going to not sell their service. These are also the agencies that still get incentives from the airlines and are actually valued by the airlines.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 49): Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46):
There are a lot of large agencies out there that work with the airlines everyday that would never think of telling an airline that they are going to not sell their service.
Which one is it.......you just said above that TA's tell airlines how to run their business?
As I explained in my post, Travel agents trying to throw their weight around and tell airlines how to run their business is what made airlines move away from offering their service through the TA's in the first place.
I guess you don't know this but there used to be a time when the majority of all travel was booked in a travel agents office. Now the majority is booked directly. As I explain in the second paragraph there are still reputable agencies out there and these are the agencies that the airlines are still working with. (Maybe not so much reputable as huge and realize they need the airline and do a lot of business for the airline so everyone maintains a good working relationship, this is not what happens with most agencies).
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 49): TA's have never been responsible for an airlines sales!
Your kidding right? Again there was a time (and not that long ago) when the majority of all sales were made in a travel agents office. Im not sure where you have been but your dead wrong.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 49): Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46):
TA's must realize that United and any other airline is doing them a favor by letting them sell their service in the first place.
You have to be seriously joking with such an asinine comment!! I can quite assure (as you obviously haven't a clue) you that it works substantially the other way around....and I can further assure you that I use the 'ability' when it's required!
If this is true why is it that the airlines don't pay the TA's a single penny to sell their tickets. If the airlines really needed the travel agents they would pay them!
There was a time when travel agents where the life blood of the industry, now however is not that time. Now airlines work with a select few of the larger agencies that deal mostly with business travel and the rest they could care less about. Your average travel agency (including all mom and pop shops) mean nothing to the airlines.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 49):
And likewise you need to realise you haven't a clue what you're talking about as much as you think you do. You seriously really do need to learn a lot.
Funny, this coming from a travel agent! If you knew what you were doing you would have got out of the business a long time ago when it was worth something.
LAXdude1023 From United States, joined Sep 2006, 4432 posts, RR: 22 Reply 52, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3185 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 51): If this is true why is it that the airlines don't pay the TA's a single penny to sell their tickets. If the airlines really needed the travel agents they would pay them!
These will be my last comments to you since you obviously are absolutely clueless to how the airline/agency relationship works.
Different airlines pay different agencies differently. Almost all airlines pay agencies a commission either through a wholesaler or directly. Especially if they have a prefered relationship with the carrier. UA for example pays as much as 12% to certain agencies to certain areas of the world. UA also gives alot of nett rates to wholesalers to Asia and Europe. So UA DOES pay agencies to sell their tickets. Almost all airlines do (everyone of the legacies do).
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 48): Really? You think that if the people didn't go to the travel agent they wouldn't fly?
I said nothing of the sort and you are taking it way out of context. Agencies are a tool in which the airline gets business. They are not the only tool. But the agency brings the airline business, not the other way around.
ORDagent From United States, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 53, posted (5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2905 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 46): There are a lot of large agencies out there that work with the airlines everyday that would never think of telling an airline that they are going to not sell their service. These are also the agencies that still get incentives from the airlines and are actually valued by the airlines.
BS! I worked as a travel agent for more than 15 years at one of the worlds largest travel management corporations. UA decided to pull some pricing stunts on contract renewals for or mutual clients. WELL. We launched a NO WAY UA campaign across N. America. We even had prizes for the accounts with the deepest drop in UA plated tickets. Three months later UA came back hat in hand. So the retail channels do affect the airlines and agencies do still have some pull.
Tariff (pricing) is set by the airlines. I don't pull a price out of my ear for a ticket. If I did that UA would pull my plates in a New York Heartbeat. With the increasing automation in the industry agencies have little sway on pricing beyond corporate contracts. The days of "creative" ticketing are long over unfortunately. Audits are now 100% automatic and 100% of the time. Don't blame agencies for pricing issues. Agents sell them.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9929 posts, RR: 73 Reply 54, posted (5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 47): TA's give the airlines lots of business at no cost to the airline.
That's not entirely accurate. TA's actually can (and do!) cost airlines millions every year thanks to things like inventory churning, making speculative bookings, and so on. Why do you think companies like Airline Automation Inc. can market things like the "Predator" engine that cancels bookings that haven't been ticketed and the "Super Dupe Snooper" that seeks out and cancels dupe bookings from agencies?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
ORDagent From United States, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2552 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 54): Why do you think companies like Airline Automation Inc. can market things like the "Predator" engine that cancels bookings that haven't been ticketed and the "Super Dupe Snooper" that seeks out and cancels dupe bookings from agencies?
Indeed these programs keep the agencies "honest". However these programs have cancelled reservations that are legit as they are part of an international itinerary that has a longer ticket time limit than a domestic fare or a government fare that has no time limit.
What airline was the first one to use automation like this? UA! However everybody does this now. The airlines have the right to maintain the integrity of their inventory.
Panova98 From United States, joined Apr 2008, 213 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2542 times:
Good Monday morning to you all. Hope you airline and travel agent people haven't all exploded over the 4th of July weekend reading all this.
Sorry I can't add much that hasn't already been said about principal/agency relationships. And, this is not all that different from what has been going on for years. But...
As neither an airline nor travel agent person, rather, simply a traveler, paying for all my own tickets, this mumbo-jumbo stuff is entertaining, but really superfluous. What makes me explode is how idiotic the airlines, however they sell their products, construct fare structures and complicate air fare prices that I have to pay and thus make the ticket purchasing process unnecessarily difficult
It should be verry easy for those of us with time on our hands to go on the computer and buy a ticket, regardless how involved the itineray is, and not be make as fools once we find out how much we have been taken. If we don't have the time, we should be able to go to the provider, or its agent and have our needs satisfied, without some added fee, The cost of selling the ticket should be a normal part of the ticket price, like fuel, labor, landing fees, whatever. If we want the provider, or its agent to provide some type of service over and above simply selling a ticket, like giving some service having nothing to do with providing the travel, or something like special credit privileges, of course, we should expect to pay a fee.
Why airlines think they have to have agents is none of my business. How they deal with agents is nice to know, but the bigger issue is the difficulty of the process of buying tickets, due in major part to pricing complexity. It is the number one reason why I simply decide not to fly. How airlines treat their agents is not really all that important to me. Granted, I'm not a travel agent, but once the customer loses confidence in the whole purchasing process, this industry is in worse shape than it might think.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 9 Reply 57, posted (5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 11): Interestinly, in some parts of the world and even in some parts of the US economy, credit card transactions are preferred because they are safe and better than cash.
Or in the case of some retailers actually cheaper than cash transactions, take Costco's branding with Amex or Target, which has their own bank. People underestimate the cost of handling cash, which requires a lot of touch labor.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 34): Except, they aren't allowed to do so. The credit card contracts within the USA forbid the companies from passing on credit card fees to customers. Whether it's in the form of a "cash discount" or a "credit card surcharge" if they got caught doing this, the credit card companies would pull their contract and UA would be stuck without the ability to take credit cards.
US law and all credit card policies prohibit a surcharge; however, many allow a cash discount. In fact, most of the restrictions on cash discounts have to do with how they are advertised. It is basically impossible to prevent a retailer from providing a POS discount, but you can go after advertisements. The interesting thing is retailers pay different commission rates depending on not just the brand of card, but the type of card. Someone has to pay for all of those cash back and loyalty programs.
Quoting DLDTW1962 (Reply 42): ith ASTA, The Canadian Travel Agents Assoc, and International Travel Agents Assoc. as well as package tour companies all banding together. We are committed NOT to sell any UA products. If UA gets its way.
Quoting UAL777 (Reply 43): I checked the websites of ASTA, The Association of Canadian Travel Agents, Association of International Travel Agents, and the International Airlines Travel Agent Network for news regarding this "commitment to not sell any UA products" and could not find ANYTHING. With the exception of the ACTA condemning the move (while still selling UA products) not one other website had a public press release regarding this. Not one.
If the ASTA does anything they will not be dumb enough to put it in writing and on the internet. Any collective action, from what is a trade group of independent contractors is liable to fall foul of US anti-trust rules. In fact DLDTW1962 is not very bright about announcing it, you don't want this info being too public.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9929 posts, RR: 73 Reply 58, posted (5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2356 times:
Quoting ORDagent (Reply 55): However these programs have cancelled reservations that are legit as they are part of an international itinerary that has a longer ticket time limit than a domestic fare or a government fare that has no time limit.
True, however the agency can simply call the airline to have them take steps to keep those programs from cancelling the PNRs in question. Most agencies simply don't bother.
And of course I'd argue that for every one legit booking that was cancelled by the program in error there were 100 cancelled bookings that were not legit. I'd take that any day.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 59, posted (5 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2346 times:
Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 57): US law and all credit card policies prohibit a surcharge; however, many allow a cash discount. In fact, most of the restrictions on cash discounts have to do with how they are advertised. It is basically impossible to prevent a retailer from providing a POS discount, but you can go after advertisements. The interesting thing is retailers pay different commission rates depending on not just the brand of card, but the type of card. Someone has to pay for all of those cash back and loyalty programs.
Yes, i should have made that more clear. You can't advertise a different price between cash and credit, and you can't charge extra to use credit. This is why UA and other big companies with broad sales channels, web presences, etc. can't "pass on the cost of a credit card to the consumer" or some such tactic.
But of course, what a clerk or store owner decides to do between you and he at the cash register can't be tracked by anyone but the IRS, and then only in a detailed audit.
As for the type of card, most retailers don't even understand the truth behind what you say. Those that refuse to take Amex because of the extra cost aren't even aware that almost every MC and Visa they take has roughly the same charge to them, because "rewards/perks" cards are treated like business credit cards by the card handling company, and business cards have about the same charges to the vendor as do Amex. I only learned it because my sister's tennis school takes credit cards and she pointed this out to me. It's amazing how few store owners read the fine print in their contracts!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
FWAERJ From United States, joined Jun 2006, 811 posts, RR: 1 Reply 60, posted (5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2304 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 59): As for the type of card, most retailers don't even understand the truth behind what you say. Those that refuse to take Amex because of the extra cost aren't even aware that almost every MC and Visa they take has roughly the same charge to them, because "rewards/perks" cards are treated like business credit cards by the card handling company, and business cards have about the same charges to the vendor as do Amex. I only learned it because my sister's tennis school takes credit cards and she pointed this out to me. It's amazing how few store owners read the fine print in their contracts!
So true about not reading fine print. In fact, some of the new Visa Signature Preferred/World Elite MasterCard cards such as the Saks Fifth Avenue MasterCard (issued by HSBC) actually have slightly higher merchant fees than American Express.
Also, I've had to report several store owners to Visa and MasterCard because they required minimum purchases, which are illegal under Visa, MasterCard, and Discover Network rules (and also American Express rules if you also accept Visa/MC and/or Discover, to prevent card discrimination). I've never seen a US merchant that required a surcharge for credit, though... if I did, I wouldn't buy from them, and I would report them.
As for UA: I wasn't aware that airlines still paid the card merchant fees. But if I were a travel agent, I would steer my customers to other airlines whenever possible because that extra 2-3% that my Visa/MC/Discover processor or AmEx will charge would either wipe out a travel agent's thin profit margins or make a UA ticket uncompetitve in price. It's the old catch-22: raise your price or crush your margins.
Let the travel agents cover the credit card transaction processing fees instead of the airline. In other words the airline gets to recover $100 of $100 of revenue instead of giving 2-4% away to credit card companies. It cost United $710 million last year in such charges.
Yes, but that is just part of doing business.....It sounds like a lot, $710 Million but how much did they make on Baggage fees? How much do they give away in lost revenue in the way of DBC vouchers because they choose to overbook flights by massive percentages?
Quoting United1 (Reply 5): The majority of travel agents that UA has started passing this cost along to were ones who didn't do much business with UA in the first place.
This is NOT true, it can be any travel agency big or small. Smaller agencies that dont give UAL much business, would not be costing UAL the big bucks that a Mega Agency would, that does large volumes of business with UAL..... So you do the math...
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 6): To my knowledge, most agencies use a prefered system. Meaning they have prefered airlines (airlines that give them commission, waivers, and nett contracts). As long as UA doesnt alienate them, theyll probably be fine. I know quite a few agencies have UA as a prefered.
Not so much anymore...Youd have to be in a United area where a majority of ticketing is on UAL.....And yes, it would be very bad for UAL to take a dump on their best supporting agencies.
Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 7): I'm gonna have to go with United on this one...It just makes good business sense.
Remember this when other businesses that you frequent decide to cut credit card fees from their bottum line and make you pay cash for everything. There is nothing that is stopping ANY credit card merchant from doing the same....
Why sell tickets through a middleman you have to "share" the money with, when you can just do it your own damn self?
Actually the Travel Agency comission cuts of 1996 and elimination of all comissions in 2002 kind of put the airlines (or so they thought) in a better position because they didnt have to pay WE Travel Agents anymore. It might have given them a short term savings, but it hurt them more than it helped them. ....Its just a fact of life and there are certain costs that must be paid by airlines to do normal business. Perhaps UAL should take get a clue from Allegiant and eliminate their toll free phone numbers..That might save them millions too!!!! If you want the privilage of accepting credit cards for your clients convenience, you eat that cost.
This isn't the 1970s, most people are competent enough to know how to use a personal computer- open up a web browser, go to united.com, search for flights, and buy a ticket...
You would like to "think" that most people are competent enuff to use a PC, that is if they have them...Not everyone is a computer nerd/pseudo travel agent like yourself.
Part of the reason the airlines are in such deep doo-doo is because of the DIY websites that they make available..They cant control their pricing.
Quoting Offloaded (Reply 13): Funny thing is people seem to forget that travel agents only got paid when they sold a ticket. They were the airline's sales force, so on reflection, how much money have airlines saved by cutting off travel agents? Like airline baggage charges. Did you notice your ticket price drop by 7% when your airline stopped paying TA commissions? I didn't. Did your airline discount you $15 because you aren't taking a bag? Of course not, they just added it.
The airlines have saved zippo since DELTA started the comission cuts in 1996. If this was the case, there would be no airline in trouble. Thru agencies, they were better able to charge realistic airfares and if you wanted to go, you paid. None of this "Pricelining" your fares to haggle for the cheapest seats....Sure its nice to not have to payuan arm and a leg to fly someplace, but then when you look at the costs involved in operating ONE airplane on a single flight, you cant make ANY money filling a $45 Million airplane with $79 airfares.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 21): Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 7):
This isn't the 1970s, most people are competent enough to know how to use a personal computer- open up a web browser, go to united.com, search for flights, and buy a ticket...
Are they? Many of the self-appointed experts on a.net can't even find their way around Fare Rules & Regulations (but insist they are correct!), so how do you expect the general public to do it, noting how often they are referred to on here as 'having no clue'. Sure, an nice, simple A to B seems relatively easy, but give me a complex itinerary and we'll see how many can book it. Remember, a complex booking [i]cannot[/]i be done on the likes of Expedia, Travelocity, Orbit, or any airline's own website. You're not taking into account such issues as Triangulation Fares, or manual fare calculation, combinability etc., etc.
Finally someone with a voice that knows what the heck they are talking about.....Thank you!!
Shame on you. You use travel agency to get infromation, use their brain and time without booking with them. They do not get paid to do that, they make their money by booking. You waste their time and talent then walk away to book it yourself. Please leave them alone so they can make time for other customers that they can make money on. United is first and if no big backlash others will follow.
Yes shame on him......
I recently had a call from a lady asking me at our agency about AMTRAK. She asked me for the toll free number. I mistakenly but quickly gave her the number, but then asked her if there was anything I could help her with....Her reply: "No, I'll just call them myself and get my own tickets...Could you please repeat that phone number again?" Quickly thinking, I said to her, "Im sorry, you will have to get that phone number yourself..." Her reaction to me was: "Well, youre not a good Travel Agent...." I in turn told her: "Well you're not a good client." Click she hung up.....She actually had the gall to have her boyfriend call right back and ask for the same information from my co-worker....My co-worker simply told him, "You can find the number for AMTRAK with Directory Assistance.....
Yes, the supposed know it all's love to call and pick our brains and then go do it themselves...Its kinda funny when that happens, and they come back to us and tell us of all their problems and how they should have let us book them.....
Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 15): Except they weren't "sharing" money with anyone in this case. If a pax books a ticket through UA directly, the airline eats the credit card processing fee. The current system with travel agents works exactly like that as well... UA doesn't get any more or any less on a $100 ticket when it's booked through a travel agency, since they don't pay a commission. Travel agents recoup that money with their fees to clients. UA is basically getting grabby and telling the travel agencies to eat the credit card processing costs, whicih I'm sure will cause a drop in bookings from affected agencies.
This will also cause problems for pax, since they'll no longer get automatic insurance coverage, etc from their CC company, nor will they get their bonus miles for using their card, since the payment is made out to Joe's ticket Shoppee....
This is exaclty it!!!!!!!!! Actually at a recent meeting, AA and DL CEOs were putting their heads together in trying to come up with a plan to make Travel Agents pay for the "privilage" of booking their flights.
The only way that an agency has to get around this silliness is to book all the tickets directly with UAL.com for their clients. However, guess what? UAL will still get hit with those fees no matter if an agency books it or someone books direct as stated above...
Let sleeping dogs lie......
USPIT10L From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2636 posts, RR: 9 Reply 62, posted (5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2084 times:
Quoting Access-Air (Reply 61): Yes shame on him......
I recently had a call from a lady asking me at our agency about AMTRAK. She asked me for the toll free number. I mistakenly but quickly gave her the number, but then asked her if there was anything I could help her with....Her reply: "No, I'll just call them myself and get my own tickets...Could you please repeat that phone number again?" Quickly thinking, I said to her, "Im sorry, you will have to get that phone number yourself..." Her reaction to me was: "Well, youre not a good Travel Agent...." I in turn told her: "Well you're not a good client." Click she hung up.....She actually had the gall to have her boyfriend call right back and ask for the same information from my co-worker....My co-worker simply told him, "You can find the number for AMTRAK with Directory Assistance.....
Yes, the supposed know it all's love to call and pick our brains and then go do it themselves...Its kinda funny when that happens, and they come back to us and tell us of all their problems and how they should have let us book them.....
I don't consider myself a know-it-all, but you've got the basic point. If the airlines hadn't given up their own pricing system and worked with agencies instead of cutting, cutting, cutting, we might not be in this mess with no way out. I have no problem asking an agency for basic information, but in truth, the internet does provide quite a large amount of information that is far more accessible than just calling somebody.
I did a brief internship with an agency back in 2001, and I actually fielded calls about GREYHOUND, believe it or not. Unfortunately, when you work with the public, you will get customers like that. They may drive you crazy, but they're only a fraction of your viable business.
MogandoCI From United States, joined Jun 2009, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2014 times:
Is it just me, or UAL747DEN sounds like someone from inside UA who's trying so very hard to spin this new PR disaster as a positive? If so, I congratulate him on even bother to give the effort of trying
The same thing happened to Venetian Macau (so I've heard) that they lost a lot of money a while ago because they refused to pay standard commission and incentive rates to casino junkets, so they steered all their high-rollers to competing casinos.
UA keeps this up, and I can imagine Expedia and Orbitz purposely sorting UA results to the last among all airlines that show the same price for an itinerary.
And for those who claim that this only affects a small portion of the TA industry, I'm very confident that if the trial were successful (at least in UA's perspective), they would roll it out to all TAs, large or small.
UAL747DEN From United States, joined Dec 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 13 Reply 64, posted (5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1991 times:
Quoting USPIT10L (Reply 62): If the airlines hadn't given up their own pricing system and worked with agencies instead of cutting, cutting, cutting, we might not be in this mess with no way out.
LOL!!
Your kidding right! You really think that the industry trouble comes from not working with travel agents? What kind of crap are these trade groups sending out to you people that make you believe this crap!
MillwallSean From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 552 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1888 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 51):
There was a time when travel agents where the life blood of the industry, now however is not that time. Now airlines work with a select few of the larger agencies that deal mostly with business travel and the rest they could care less about. Your average travel agency (including all mom and pop shops) mean nothing to the airlines.
People takes this to personally. we all have to take one step back and analyse rather than see it through our own glasses.
We have to remember that this is business and everyone is subjective here. Its the living of people were talking about but its also airlines that's loosing tonnes of money and trying everything they can to better their balance sheets.
I have yet to come across one industry that doesn't want full control over their sales.
It should be the first thing anyone working with organisations and productivity points out.
Everyone that sells through agents of any kind or are dependent on outside sales channels wants to reduce reliance on them.
Many cant but in the case of airlines they have seen competitors that can.
We have some pretty profitable carriers that have moved almost everything in house. Lowcost carriers mainly. Only bookings on their own websites and cancelling tickets sold through travel agents etc.
Every airline will be looking at them and at their own control. Its natural. The more sales they can move under their own umbrella the more certainty it provides them.
In times of bad economy certainty is very important to business.
Many of the agents knows that there are value and relations lost when you move things under your own control. But sometimes value, relations or for that fact service isn't part of the equation when companies decides to make changes.
Especially not when to much of corporate America does their best to please anonymous bankers in financial holding companies.
We have all seen CRM become hype. CRM comes from Relationship marketing and the entire idea that one can create value/relationships by automating CRM is a joke. Yet company after company automates CRM. The reason is that gain control and with control comes security and calculations.
They loose their RM or CRM but they gain a number they can calculate and that makes accountants, managers and consultants happy because security can be calculated.
Value, service and relations cant.
Obviously United knows what agents they want to use and they are telling the rest that they are not important enough to warrant any special treatment.
They probably think that some of those sales could be done through either onlineagents or be lost.
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 60):
Also, I've had to report several store owners to Visa and MasterCard because they required minimum purchases, which are illegal under Visa, MasterCard, and Discover Network rules (and also American Express rules if you also accept Visa/MC and/or Discover, to prevent card discrimination). I've never seen a US merchant that required a surcharge for credit, though... if I did, I wouldn't buy from them, and I would report them.
Its interesting. Is this the agreement with the card providers or is it legislation?
In most countries it always costs more to use a creditcard compared to cash.
Amex especially is not accepted at many places due to this.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care. Millwall against the world!
FWAERJ From United States, joined Jun 2006, 811 posts, RR: 1 Reply 66, posted (5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 65): Its interesting. Is this the agreement with the card providers or is it legislation?
In most countries it always costs more to use a creditcard compared to cash.
Amex especially is not accepted at many places due to this.
In many US states, it's illegal. However, it's also built into the merchant rules found in Visa and MasterCard merchant processing agreements in the USA. Page 10 of the "Rules for Visa Merchants" (found here) state that a merchant should do the following (fair use excerpt): "Always treat Visa transactions like any other transaction; that is, you may not impose any surcharge on a Visa transaction." Bylaw 5.9.2 of the MasterCard Rules state a similar policy for MasterCard transactions.
United1 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 3161 posts, RR: 4 Reply 67, posted (5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1786 times:
Quoting Access-Air (Reply 61): Quoting United1 (Reply 5):
The majority of travel agents that UA has started passing this cost along to were ones who didn't do much business with UA in the first place.
This is NOT true, it can be any travel agency big or small.
Big or small is irrelevant, the ones who did not do much business with UA are the ones this is being tested out on....
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 68, posted (5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 65): Its interesting. Is this the agreement with the card providers or is it legislation?
In most countries it always costs more to use a creditcard compared to cash.
Amex especially is not accepted at many places due to this.
Shocking to some people, but the USA does have quite a few consumer protection laws, mostly on the state level, but some on the federal level.
Additionally, the credit card companies, in order to increase their business, insisted on these clauses.
This helped create the "credit culture" we have in the USA because for the consumer, using a credit card is just like using cash, except even if you pay off your bill in full, you get a free "loan" for a couple of weeks.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12184 posts, RR: 22 Reply 69, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
Well this idea moved back 60-days.
Quote: United delays credit card fee shift for 60 days
Monday July 20, 2009
DALLAS (AP) -- United Airlines has delayed for up to two months a plan to force some travel agencies to pay the credit-card fees of customers who charge their tickets, a cost that is currently borne by the airline.
JMBWEEBOY From United States, joined Feb 2006, 173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Read this morning apparently only 28 agencies received the original notice! Like what's the point ?
Well point is likely that this was indeed a trial baloon to see reaction not necessarily from the agents whom they are not concerned of screwing, but rather Washington. A number of lawmakers are starting to rally against it. I predict by Labor Day this idea will be canned by United and just in the end appear as a desperate move by a desperate airline.
Blrsea From India, joined May 2005, 951 posts, RR: 4 Reply 71, posted (4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1128 times:
I was trying to book tickets on BA through travel agents, and more than a couple of agents told me that BA doesn't accept credit cards and that I have to pay by check. Issue appears to be similar in that the travel agents get the money and they send it to the airlines, and my card isn't directly charged to BA. So looks like there is a precedent for already doing this.
Let the travel agents cover the credit card transaction processing fees instead of the airline. In other words the airline gets to recover $100 of $100 of revenue instead of giving 2-4% away to credit card companies. It cost United $710 million last year in such charges.
The travel agents are free to pass or build the the fee onto their customers if they wish, as most charge service fees these days anyhow.
71 replies and the best most logically broken down one is still the first.
United1 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 3161 posts, RR: 4 Reply 73, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 715 times:
Quoting JMBWEEBOY (Reply 73): Per Travel Weekly, several congressman/woman are likely to call for congressional hearings on this issue to be held in September.
Besides wasting my tax dollars what's the point? UA already announced that they are delaying implementing this at all 28 affected agencies for at least 60 days so more then likely this idea is dead in the water.
Access-Air From United States, joined Sep 2000, 1858 posts, RR: 28 Reply 74, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 574 times:
[quote=UAL747DEN,reply=64]LOL!!
Your kidding right! You really think that the industry trouble comes from not working with travel agents? What kind of crap are these trade groups sending out to you people that make you believe this crap!
I would ask what kind of Indoctrination you have been served up with?
Before the Internet and E-Tkts (Thank you Valujet...NOT!!!!), there were three ways to buy tickets, Call the airline, Go to the airport or visit your local travel agency.
Airlines prices were the SAME if you bought it from them directly, on the phone or at a travel agency. The airlines as an incentive to book them and bring them business was to pay a Travel Agent a meager 10% commission. Sometimes it was higher depending on the airline and the contracts that some airlines would forge with Travel Agencies...
Then as as the idea of selling airline tickets on the internet, the airliens got cocky (DELTA was the first) and decided to cut commissions. Well like the monkey see monkey do industry which is the airline industry is, everyone followed suit.
Did I mention that I am a Travel Agent and have been since, well It will be TWENTY YEARS next month!!!!
Soon afterward, Travel Agencies were up in arms as they have all been betrayed by the very companies that they had dedicated their every business deal to. A call to action by travel agenst came to nothing, boycotting airlines because of a federal law that prevented the agencies from colluding against the airlines. So with that in place, airlines were free to cut away until the very last cut came in March 2002. I wa sin England at that time. My co-worker e-mailed me that news. Zero commissions thanks to Godd Ole Delta.
The airlines claimed that they would be saving millions. Yeah right. The day that they decided to cut agnecies out of the picture is the day that airlines slowly started poisoning themselves to death. I might add that the very last airline to dump their commissions was SOUTHWEST!!! Of course Southwest wasnt bleeding to death like everyone else...I wonder if United is successful in their scheme here, will Travel Agencies be able to use the same collusion tactic used on them a decade earlier? Probably not.
So now airlines have what they wanted. The demand of the general public sets the pricing and the airlines are so scared to raise fares but not afraid to "FEE" everyone to death.
Im glad everyone loves paying for baggage an everything else that should be partof the whole package.....Hmmm, didnt PeoplExpress do that? What about paying for everything else? A la Carte is for restaurants, not airline travel!!!
If you dont miss the perks of these things that airlines once provided then you are probably too young to remember them.
Let United do this...Our agency will just sell on the UA website and they will still be charged their credit card fee....
Access-Air
p.s. One final note, Some people will want to pay with a credit card for the credit card flight insurance, just wait until they are made to pay cash....This point ALWAYS comes up in our agency.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18471 posts, RR: 60 Reply 75, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 532 times:
Quoting FXramper (Reply 72): 71 replies and the best most logically broken down one is still the first.
You obviously didn't read all 71, as what he proposes would not be allowed under the travel agent's credit card contracts unless it applied to all customers, not simply credit card customers.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5203 posts, RR: 86 Reply 76, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 481 times:
Quoting Access-Air (Reply 74): So with that in place, airlines were free to cut away until the very last cut came in March 2002.
June 2001 would have been the end. That was the launch of Orbitz. The hype and marketing of that sight worked. I never bought a ticket through a travel agency again. Oh, I now shop at multiple sites for low fares. I've never known a world where business travel was anything but online. Cest la vie.
Once upon the time the consumer had a hunger to find out more about fares. What days were cheaper to fly on, what cost reduction for a 1 stop or 2 stop fight, etc.
Is there a point for international travel? Sure. But I know for my last major vacation (Hawaii, multiple islands, multiple hops) we never considered talking to anyone for a trip. We used HA's website (booked all flights to/from HNL to save the 'connection surcharge' they hit mainlanders with), all hotels but one on priceline and called the little hotel my wife wanted to always stay at.
I remember both the perks *and cost* of earlier airline travel. I've flown cheaper TATL than one used to be able to fly transcon.
Oh, for the record, I did fly People's express too! {Spin} Hot crowded flight to HNL... But as a kid spending a week at the beach, it was the only way a family could afford it back then.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2000, 1886 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13701 posts, 
From Gibraltar, joined Apr 2009, 196 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3108 posts, 
I fully agree.
From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 112 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Jun 2005, 80 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10934 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Feb 2008, 119 posts, 
. But seriously, when internet is at times restricted, limited use or lack of a CC, and other issues, they certainly do serve a purpose. And this isn't only in countries outside the U.S. Same issues here.e
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, 
From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 552 posts, 
From India, joined May 2005, 951 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
