94-24167. Computer Reservations System (CRS) Regulations  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-24167]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: September 30, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    14 CFR Part 255
    
    [Docket No. 48808]
    
     
    
    Computer Reservations System (CRS) Regulations
    
    AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
    
    ACTION: Termination of proceeding on petition for rulemaking on rules 
    governing computer reservations systems.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Department is granting a request by the American Society 
    of Travel Agents (ASTA) that ASTA be allowed to withdraw its petition 
    for a rulemaking to amend the Department's rules on computer 
    reservations systems (CRSs). ASTA had asked the Department to amend its 
    CRS rules (14 CFR Part 255) to include a prohibition against the 
    inclusion of lost booking fees in the damages recoverable by a CRS 
    vendor when a travel agency breaches its contract for CRS services 
    before the end of the contract's term. ASTA is now asking the 
    Department for leave to withdraw its petition on the ground that the 
    largest CRS vendor has agreed to change its CRS contract practices in a 
    way which will eliminate ASTA's need for a rulemaking.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Ray, Office of the General 
    Counsel, 400 Seventh St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-4731.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the United States travel agencies sell 
    the great majority of all airline tickets. In selling air 
    transportation (and other travel services) travel agencies primarily 
    rely on computer reservations systems to find out what airline services 
    and fares are available for their customers, to make bookings, and to 
    issue tickets. Each of the CRSs operating in the United States is owned 
    by one or more airlines or airline holding companies. The nature of the 
    CRS and the airline businesses gives each operator of a CRS (``the 
    vendor'') a significant ability to prejudice the competitive position 
    of other airlines and to limit the information on airline services 
    given travel agencies and their customers. The Civil Aeronautics Board, 
    the agency which had been responsible for airline economic regulation 
    through 1984, therefore adopted rules regulating CRS operations under 
    section 411 of the Federal Aviation Act (``the Act''), 49 U.S.C. 1381. 
    Two years ago we revised those rules to further protect airline 
    competition. 14 CFR Part 255, adopted by 57 FR 43780 (September 22, 
    1992).
        One of the major issues in our rulemaking concerned the contract 
    terms sought by CRS vendors from travel agencies using a CRS 
    (``subscribers''), since several commonly-used contract terms 
    restricted the subscribers' ability to add or switch systems. We 
    revised our CRS rules to prohibit certain subscriber contract clauses 
    that appeared to unreasonably interfere with a travel agency's ability 
    to use more than one system, but we did not adopt other proposals for 
    regulating subscriber contracts.
        A number of parties in the rulemaking had complained that vendors 
    made it difficult for subscribers to switch systems before the end of 
    the term of their CRS contract by making a subscriber liable for 
    substantial liquidated damages if it breached the contract. The 
    liquidated damages formulas used by the vendors typically included an 
    element for ``lost booking fees.'' Booking fees--the fees paid by 
    airlines and other travel suppliers whenever an agency uses a system to 
    book a travel service--provide most of each vendor's CRS revenues. Lost 
    booking fees are the amount of booking fees the vendor would have 
    received if the subscriber had continued to use its system during the 
    remaining term of the contract. In calculating lost booking fees the 
    vendor typically assumed that the subscriber would have used its system 
    for most of its bookings. The inclusion of lost booking fees in the 
    damages due a vendor on a subscriber's breach of contract greatly 
    increases the damages obtainable by the vendor from the subscriber and 
    thereby makes it much more costly for an agency to breach its CRS 
    contract.
        While we decided not to adopt a prohibition against the inclusion 
    of lost booking fees in liquidated damages, we stated that our rules 
    were intended to give travel agencies the ability to use more than one 
    system and that therefore no vendor should expect a subscriber to use 
    its system for most of the agency's bookings during the term of the 
    contract. No vendor could therefore reasonably expect that a subscriber 
    contract would produce a substantial flow of booking fees. As a result, 
    we concluded that the contract law principles governing liquidated 
    damages would make unenforceable any contract that required a 
    subscriber to pay damages based on lost booking fees. 57 FR 43827-
    43828.
        ASTA, the nation's largest travel agency trade association, filed a 
    petition for rulemaking. ASTA urged us to adopt an express prohibition 
    against the inclusion of lost booking fees in liquidated damages 
    clauses. ASTA alleged that American Airlines' Sabre system was 
    continuing to use such contract clauses since American argued that its 
    contract terms were consistent with our rules. ASTA proposed that we 
    amend Sec. 255.8 of our rules by adding a subsection that would 
    prohibit a vendor from requiring a subscriber to pay liquidated damages 
    to the extent that the damages enable the vendor to recover from the 
    subscriber the booking fees that the vendor would have obtained from 
    participating airlines.
        Two vendors, Worldspan and System One Direct Access, filed answers 
    supporting ASTA's petition, while American opposed it. American 
    asserted that its contract provision was merely a means of enforcing 
    its productivity pricing formula, that the Department determined in the 
    rulemaking that productivity pricing (a form of pricing that reduces a 
    subscriber's CRS fees when it increases its use of the CRS) was 
    permissible, and that the American contract provision as a practical 
    matter could not keep an agency from using another system.
        The Department invited other persons to file comments on ASTA's 
    petition. 58 FR 41068 (August 2, 1993). In response, System One, 
    Worldspan, Delta Air Lines (a Worldspan partner), Air France, and three 
    travel agencies (Hewins Travel Consultants, Travelbound, Inc., and WTT, 
    Inc., d/b/a Woodside Travel Trust) filed comments supporting ASTA's 
    proposal or similar restrictions on vendor subscriber contracts. 
    American again opposed such proposals. Apollo Travel Services, the 
    marketing arm of the second largest U.S. CRS, Galileo, stated it was 
    taking no position on ASTA's proposal but took issue with WTT's alleged 
    misdescription of Apollo's subscriber contracts. In its comments the 
    Orient Airlines Association asked us to begin a rulemaking on other CRS 
    issues.
        However, ASTA has moved to withdraw its rulemaking petition on the 
    ground that American had agreed with ASTA that in future subscriber 
    contracts American would substitute an actual damages clause for a 
    liquidated damages clause and that American would give its subscribers 
    the option of replacing the liquidated damages clause in their existing 
    contracts with an actual damages clause. American would take these 
    steps within thirty days of our dismissal of ASTA's rulemaking 
    petition. Since American's agreement had eliminated the cause of ASTA's 
    request for a rulemaking, ASTA wishes to withdraw its petition.
        Despite ASTA's request for withdrawal, System One and Worldspan 
    contend that ASTA's agreement with American should not keep us from 
    proposing new rules on subscriber contracts. They contend that American 
    could demand lost booking fees as part of its actual damages and that 
    American's productivity pricing formula requires subscribers to 
    guarantee that American will receive booking fees during the term of 
    their contracts. WTT, a consortium of very large travel agencies, 
    initially filed a pleading opposing ASTA's motion to withdraw its 
    petition. However, WTT later stated that it wished to withdraw that 
    opposition. WTT, which prefers market solutions to business problems, 
    has learned that American is willing to negotiate changes in its 
    subscriber contracts with some agencies. In WTT's opinion, this means 
    that regulatory action is no longer necessary.
        We will grant ASTA's motion to withdraw its petition for 
    rulemaking, and we will terminate this proceeding. We do not believe 
    that we should begin a rulemaking of the kind sought by Worldspan, 
    System One, Delta, and the two smaller agencies at this time, even 
    though their comments have cited practices by American and Apollo that 
    may be troublesome. However, we do not now have detailed knowledge on 
    the effects of our revised CRS rules, which became effective less than 
    two years ago, nor on other changes that may have affected the 
    operation of the CRS and airline businesses. Rather than begin a 
    rulemaking, we prefer to begin an informal investigation into these 
    issues. In that investigation we are seeking information from vendors, 
    airlines, travel agency groups and individual agencies, and other 
    persons with knowledge of CRSs and related airline marketing issues.
        That investigation should give us sufficient knowledge to determine 
    whether we should propose changes to the rules and, if so, what kind of 
    changes, just as our last rulemaking relied heavily on the examination 
    of the CRS business undertaken by the Secretary's Task Force on 
    Competition in the Domestic Airline Industry. Airline Marketing 
    Practices: Travel Agencies, Frequent Flyer Programs, and Computer 
    Reservation Systems (February 1990), cited at 57 FR 43782. As part of 
    that informal investigation, we are issuing an order requiring the 
    vendors to provide us with certain information and inviting vendors, 
    airlines, travel agencies, and other interested persons to meet with 
    our staff to discuss the issues. Our dismissal of ASTA's petition, of 
    course, will not prevent us from instituting a new rulemaking on CRS 
    issues if we find one warranted.
    
        Issued in Washington, D.C. on September 26, 1994.
    Patrick V. Murphy,
    Acting Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Aviation and 
    International Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 94-24167 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
09/30/1994
Department:
Transportation Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Termination of proceeding on petition for rulemaking on rules governing computer reservations systems.
Document Number:
94-24167
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: September 30, 1994, Docket No. 48808
CFR: (1)
14 CFR 255