Patent Application
20120239442
(1) Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of airline reservations and ticketing. In particular the invention relates to the protection of the validating airline revenue in case of partial change on interline tickets, meaning that the passenger has already flown a portion of the ticket itinerary operated by a different airline and wants to change the non-used portion.
(2) Description of Related Art
Today, booking tools give travel agents the possibility to perform on-line reservations, pricing and ticketing.
A passenger may want to book flights for a travel that no airline can provide by itself, as a single airline is not able to provide a route network, which covers the globe. Interlining has been created to enable the booking of an itinerary containing flights operated by different carriers, enabling the passenger to pay one single price (a.k.a. “fare”), in one currency, for the ticket covering the whole trip. Usually, a “through fare” is set for the whole journey, rather than charging the separate fares applying for each individual flight coupon, and this through fare is often lower than the sum of these separate fares.
The interline system could not operate efficiently unless the participants involved in that interlined carriage had an agreed mechanism for sharing the revenue collected by the ticketing (validating) carrier. The validating airline collects the total fare from the passenger, then this fare is split into coupon prorated amounts thanks to the Proration system so that settlements on these coupon prorated amounts can be made with other carriers (participating airlines).
The Proration idea is to share the ticket fare into coupon-prorated amounts either thanks to public agreements governed by IATA, which are the Multilateral Prorate Agreements (MPA) or thanks to bilateral private agreements signed by partners airlines, which are the Special Prorate Agreements (SPA).
The e-ticket can be subject to several actions during its lifetime. In particular, after issuance the passenger can return to the travel agency or to the airline agent in order to:
The request for exchange (resp. refund) is sent to the validating airline's ticketing server. Both requests may be subject to a fee corresponding to penalty linked to exchange/refund process handling. As well, either the full ticket or part of the ticket's itinerary (coupons) can be exchanged / refunded. These requests can be performed either manually by the agent, or via automated tools.
Today, rules are filed by publishing airlines (i.e. marketing carriers) inside the reservation system in order to statically attach a stated refund value, which is ticket context less to a given route for the exchange/refund process. This stated refund value (ticket context less) is not at all related to the prorated amount (ticket context full) of this coupon, especially in the case of the SPA where the prorated amounts agreed between airlines are likely to be the most different from the stated refund values.
Typically, in an example itinerary the Nice-Paris-New York priced $1000, if the Nice-Paris (prorated amount gave $500) was flown by an other airline and Paris-New York had a stated value for refund of $700 (rule filed by the airline for Paris-New York for that class is $700) the refund of the Paris New York sector would cause a loss to the validating airline of $200 in the Refund transaction. Indeed, the validating airline would give $700 to the passenger for the refund of the Paris-New York plus $500 (prorated amount for the Nice-Paris) to the airline operating the Nice-Paris, which makes $1200 whereas it just received $1000 at issuance time.
The present invention wishes to prevent such a loss by a validating airline.
The invention solves the issues of loss by a validating airline in the partial exchange/refund process for the interline tickets by relying on ticket's coupon actual prorated amount.
Then, authorizing the refund or the exchange upon the validating airline ticket's balance is equal or greater than a predefined threshold or triggering an event upon the validating carrier ticket's balance is less than a predefined threshold.
If an event is triggered for the refund case proposing a new refund value be set to the prorated amount in response to the triggered event. Then setting the new refund value to the prorated amount upon the acceptance and authorizing the refund for the new refund value.
Within the system, the stated value of a portion is unrelated to the total itinerary value whereas the prorated value is based both on the itinerary and on the itinerary value.
One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the above method may also be carried out by a series of programmed processor with software units able to perform a given task of the method.
The invention also relates to a computer program product comprising instructions capable of performing the steps of the method.
The following paragraphs will specifically describe the audit of a partial change by a validating airline for an interline itinerary, wherein they are to be understood as being merely for the purpose of description and not of limitation.
Request for refund or exchange of an itinerary may be received at servers 101, 103 and 105 via network 107 from a travel agent computer 113 or web server 115 connected to users via network 107. It is further understood that web server 115 may be contacted via a user including travel agent 113 via laptop 117, PDA 119 or other network capable device such a smart phone 121.
In auditing method 401 is implemented by having a server receive 403 a request for a partial ticket change for at least one non-used portion of an interline ticket. It is further understood that such a request may be received from a travel agent or received automatically via an e-ticketing system when a request for the change is made upon a ticketing change request. The amount of the request may be an automatic amount (in case of automatic change process) or a manual amount inputted by a travel agent (in case of manual change process).
Next, the proration engine calculates, 405, a prorated amount for the original itinerary and determines 406 a partial ticket change value. For the refund case, the partial ticket change value is the stated refund value for the at least one non-used portion. For the exchange case, the partial ticket change value is the prorated amount for the new itinerary. The prorated amount is determined based on a set of business rules stored in the proration business rules database 111.
A next step, calculates 407, a validating carrier ticket's balance. For the refund case, it is equal to the difference between the prorated amount and the partial ticket change value. For the exchange case, it is the opposite.
If, 409, the validating carriers ticket's balance is equal or greater than a predefined threshold, then the partial ticket change is authorized.
However, if 411 the validating carriers ticket's balance is less than a predefined threshold, then trigger an event indicating that the refund or exchange should not be authorized.
Upon the event 411 being triggered, for the refund case, an alternative new refund value can be proposed and the partial ticket change value is a stated refund value for the at least one non-used portion 501. Then the agent or passenger can accept the proposed value then refund is set 503 to the prorated value.
The same calculation method is kept, using the prorate factors instead of the mileage. This is known as a “straight rate proration” (SRP), and is part of International Air Transport Association (IATA) proration rules known as Multilateral Prorate Agreements 305 (MPA). These rules are summarized in a book published every quarter by IATA, the Prorate Manual Passenger (PMP).
But in some cases, there was still unacceptable revenue differences between all the carriers involved in the journey. The straight rate proration has some drawbacks, amongst which the fact that each carrier will receive only a proportion of the original ticket amount. In other terms, it means that the revenue of the participating carrier (the airline that operates the flight on which the passenger boards) depends on the ticket amount, which is fixed by the validating airline. This has led to the creation of the Provisos 309: in a nutshell, this system is not based on a percentage of the total amount, but on some “flat amounts” published by the participating airlines. These Provisos are also part of the MPA.
More precisely, it is a complex system composed of:
Finally, airlines can use Special Prorate Agreements 309 (SPA), in opposition with MPA, in order to share the revenue differently in a way defined in the agreement. These SPA are bilateral private agreements that prevail over any other agreements. They can be applied only when the signatories of the SPA are the only ones involved in the itinerary.
Coupon A is flown by operating carrier O.
The passenger decides to refund his remaining segment B. Agent performs the refund transaction for a stated value of $700 (Step 401).
When the validating airline receives the refund request, it forwards (step 403) it to an Auditing module which prorates the initial ticket $1000 for coupons A and B (step 405). Coupon A is prorated for e.g. $400 (a proviso was filed on this short segment). The auditing module compares validating airline balance: by computing the initial ticket amount−flown coupon value−refunded ticket value. $1000−$400−$700=−$100 <0 As balance is negative the refund amount is rejected (step 409).
In addition to checking that a balance does not go negative having a tolerance of zero a negative value can be used as a tolerance margin to give a larger buffer for a validating airline.
In the second example of
Coupon A is flown by operating carrier O.
The passenger decides to exchange his remaining two segments B and C for new segments D and E. Agent performs the exchange transaction and new ticket price is $900 (step 401).
When validating airline receives the exchange request (step 403) it forwards it to Auditing module which prorates the initial ticket $1000 for all coupons A, B, and C. Coupon A is prorated for e.g. $200 (Step 405).
The Auditing Module will also prorate the new ticket 605 through the full itinerary (Coupons A, D, E) with the new ticket price. A new substitute A is A′ the value of the coupon A in the new itinerary (A′=new price ticket−prorated value coupon D−prorated value coupon E)
The auditing module compares validating airline balance:
A′−A=$300−$200=$100>0
As balance is positive the exchange amount is accepted (Step 407).
In an alternative scenario, imagine that D and E are operated by other airlines, they would bill the validating airline for $600 ($900−$300). Moreover, the operating carrier O would have already billed $200 for the coupon A in the original ticket.
The total balance for the validating airline is: $1000 (original ticket amount) −$200 (amount given to airline O) −$600 (amount given to operating airlines for coupons D and E) −$100 (residual value given to passenger) =$100 so the exchange would have been accepted as the balance is positive (Step 407).
If the coupon A in the new ticket would have a prorated value of $150 (A′), the amount given to operating airlines for coupons D and E would be $750 and in this case, the validating airline would have a negative balance:
$1000−$200−$750−$100=−$50
So the exchange would have been rejected (Step 409).
As described above, according to the invention, it is possible to validate a request for refund or exchange.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11305308.6 | Mar 2011 | EP | regional |
