Op-Ed: This Parrot Is Deceased

Twenty years ago, a British comedy troupe—Monty Python's Flying Circus—produced a now-famous skit in which a disgruntled consumer tried to return a parrot to a pet shop, claiming that the bird was dead, and had been deceased since the time of purchase. Unmoved by the evidence of a parrot obviously nailed to the perch, the shopkeeper claims the bird is merely "resting," or "asleep." His final reply to the argument that the parrot has passed on is, "It hasn't," even though no amount of shouting or whacking the cage produces any response from the occupant.

The current airfare structure in the United States has a lot in common with Monty Python's parrot. For one thing, it's deceased. And for another, no amount of whacking the cage will produce the desired response. Denying that the airfare structure has passed on will not make it any livelier. In fact, ignoring the situation in the hope that the economy will suddenly bloom is worse than offering your best customer a deceased parrot. It's the equivalent of giving them the bird.

In March, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives was virtually the only industry authority advocating airfare reform. We took a little heat for it. In June, American Airlines' Don Carty drew the same conclusion that we did. Other carriers both here and abroad have also said as much, though not as directly. It would appear that we may have simply said what everyone else was thinking. Now we are attempting to do what everyone else should be doing: encouraging dialogue to precipitate change.

If you insist, there are plenty of reasons why airfare reform shouldn't work. Start with pricing. We have been told that airline pricing is so complicated that there can be no other approach to the subject other than the present system. Add the economy to the equation: that lowering business airfares will not induce cash-strapped companies to increase their travel spending. And, finally, there are the carriers themselves. We have been told that unless the majors unilaterally agree, no change is possible.

But the change has already occurred. The most profitable years in air travel (the late '90s) have been based on corporate spending patterns funded by unfounded stock market exuberance and a couple of novel accounting practices.

Within the industry, travelers are finding the glamour of business travel to be a highly overrated hassle. Their companies are very enthusiastic about not paying for a lot of things, travel being high on the list. More realistic fares will not change all of these circumstances, but they are part of the business reform necessary for the recovery years. And this recovery will take years.

Airfare reform is going to mean major changes in carrier cost structures and volume guarantees for corporate consumers. The former is a huge shift in corporate culture. The latter is a purchasing principle that has been overlooked in this industry for three decades. I believe this is the year when Corporate America will realize the price of overlooking the other way.

We are learning new lessons here in America. Every headline teaches us something about accounting. The stock market has reminded Americans that negative numbers are part of a valid mathematical principle. The upshot of these hard lessons is that there will be new corporate models to follow. There will be more prudent strategies for investment. I believe corporate growth—based on substance, as opposed to hype—is inevitable. And I believe airfare reform must be part of the new economic reality.

The alternative is Monty Python's parrot.

Cheryl Hutchinson is president of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which is based in Alexandria, Va.