European Parliament Revises CRS Code, Requires GDSs Display More Data
The European Parliament today approved revisions to the code of conduct for computerized reservation systems in the European Union, mandating GDSs display more data but offering no clarification of its controversial "parent carrier" definition.
The adopted revisions mandate that GDSs display rail and bus content alongside some air content and recommending GDSs provide carbon emissions data for different modes of travel, display fares inclusive of taxes and surcharges and disclose GDS market information data tape sales or transfer to subscribers.
Air carriers now are required to publish fares "inclusive of all taxes and charges, surcharges and fees, which are unavoidable and foreseeable. Computer reservation systems displays should provide information on fares inclusive of the same price categories to ensure that travel agents can communicate this information to their clients."
The new code of conduct, which is intended to promote competition and lower distribution costs by enabling global distribution systems and airlines to negotiate unrestricted content and fee agreements, encourages CRSs to provide "easily understandable information about CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of the flight."
The code recommends that the carbon emissions data be compared with "data of the best alternative train/bus connection for journeys of less than five hours."
Code revisions can take effect pending the publication of text in the European Union's Official Journal, which a parliament official expects in the next six weeks.
While the deregulation effort is supposed to end discriminatory practices, promote transparency and drive down costs, the debate regarding "parent carrier" definition continues as no further clarification was made to the amendment, which is perceived by some in the industry to favor Amadeus, in which Air France/KLM, Iberia and Lufthansa each hold minority stakes.
"The new code is designed to reenergize the travel sector, so the sooner it is introduced, the sooner we see the benefits of that—lower air fares, more choice and greater transparency," European Parliament rapporteur Timothy Kirkhope said in the plenary debate.
According to the revised code, " 'parent carrier' means any air carrier or rail-transport operator which directly or indirectly, alone or jointly with others, controls or participates in the capital with rights or representation on the board of directors, supervisory board or any other governing body of a system vendor, as well as any air carrier or rail-transport operator which it controls."
A new amendment states, "participation in the capital with rights or representation on the board of directors, supervisory board or any other governing body of a system vendor means an investment to which are attached rights or representation on the board of directors, supervisory board or any other governing body of a system vendor, and conferring the possibility of exercising, alone or jointly with others, decisive influence on the running of the business of the system vendor."
Parliament rejected a request by two partisan groups to refer the revisions back to the committee on transport and tourism.
Sabre Travel Network senior vice president of Europe, the Middle East and Africa Martin Cowley said in a statement, "While we're disappointed with the outcome, we're encouraged by the strong support from the members of Parliament who clearly share the same concerns that consumer groups have on the ambiguity of the CRS Code of Conduct, and the impact this will have on the European travel industry. With almost 300 MEPs voting against Kirkhope's amendments to his initial proposal, many will be watching the Commission's next step to ensure the protection of the code is not rendered meaningless."
When the code was revised to include language that a parent carrier has "decisive influence" over a CRS, Business Travel Coalition chairman Kevin Mitchell said it "opened up a loophole so large you can fly an A380 though it." He added, "There have been some really great additions to the code. Virtually 99 percent of industry stakeholders who have weighed in on this in the past three years were absolutely thrilled that the important protections in the code have been maintained. Now, we have a definition of who the code applies to in Europe that can be interpreted and applies to no one."