Point/Counterpoint -- An Overriding Issue: Service
<B> Point/Counterpoint -- An Overriding Issue: Service</B>
I've never "dined" at Taco Bell, so it's hard for me to compare their service to the proper management of Business Travel, As Michael Whitesage did in his Recent Op-Ed Piece "Commission Caps Silver Lining", (<I>BTN</I>, Jan. 12).
When I go to a restaurant, I look for good food and good service, and I will gladly pay for it. The corporate accounts that my regional travel management company serves want more than the equivalent of fast food service from us. In fact, they are willing to pay to get something more from us than just the processing of a ticket.
In order for us to provide the best possible service to our customers, we must build a strong, close relationship with certain key vendors. Up until a few months ago, the majority of a travel agency's income came from airline commissions. The additional overrides received from our "partner" airlines are necessary to help us do our job better. I'd like to say it goes into our bank account, but it's used mostly to hire good people and purchase the best technology available.
When the president of one of our corporate accounts wants to get to a destination at a specific time, we must have the ability to work with a carrier that is going to do the best job for him. Our customer isn't looking for excuses. He has his problems to worry about and expects us to take care of his travel.
If we are able to negotiate corporate contracts for companies that can mandate their travelers to support these carriers and save money at the same time, what's wrong with the agency receiving an override for doing this? The company saves money due to the diligence of the agency, the airlines are making a lot of money--so why do agents have to eat hamburgers?
Business travel is both fast-paced and intricate these days. Good service is paramount. Incentives paid by carriers are necessary to help agents provide the service required by the accounts. Smart corporate agencies choose preferential suppliers and direct business to them, not at the inconvenience of travelers, but for the ability to be more responsive to their needs. So what if agencies receive extra dollars for directing this business, as long as it doesn't inconvenience the traveler? On the other hand, if the corporate travel manager does all the negotiating and the agent simply produces the ticket, that's another story.
This past week, I broke a seat to London for the wife of the president of a large account, obtained two upgrades for an important customer going on vacation and secured bulkhead seats for the father of one of our accounts who booked his tickets somewhere else and was told he only had a few months to live. No, we don't charge for these services and we couldn't have provided them without a lot of help from the airlines that we work closely with. Can you put a price on that?
Let's stop being naive, suggesting travel agents put people on certain airlines because they make more money. Not so! We book them on preferred carriers so we can expediently handle their next request, which may be just a little more difficult than the last one. Sure, taking orders is part of the business and we should not receive overrides if that's all we do. On the other hand, if we provide value, we should be paid for it.
The corporate travel world is not like buying a fajita at Taco Bell. That was probably a poor example by Michael Whitesage and taken out of context. A good travel agent can't be compared to McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's either. We provide a unique service and we deserve to get paid for it.