Ancillary Airline Revenue and Fare Families

Over the last few weeks I have given a number of keynote presentations to a variety of airline groups. These audiences covered the entire spectrum of airline types: legacy, LCCs , and 2nd & 3rd tier airlines with speeches in the US and Europe. The airline executives were a mix of e-commerce, revenue managers and IT executives dependent on the conference sponsor. I spoke about emerging technology trends including mobile, semantic search, personalization, social networking and meta-search.
I began each presentation with a discussion of ancillary revenue showing how the carriers have profited greatly by charging fees for baggage, meals, and other services. I used this cartoon to emphasis that from a customer viewpoint these are fees for formerly free services. I have no doubt that the airline executives are well aware of this fact, but with the fever pitch around the value of ancillary revenue particularly in this tough market, the perspective of the customer is often lost.
I received a more surprising reaction regarding the subject of fare families (branded fares). Online search whether through an OTA or Meta-search company, yields a logo and price worsening the move towards commoditization. Every airline is concerned that their product is perceived as a commodity, but few are embracing fare families.
I am old enough to remember earlier LCCs attempts at market dominance with carriers such as People's Express and Texas Air disappearing after a few years of heavy fare matching by the legacy carriers. Of course today's success of LCCs is powered by direct distribution through the Internet and thus is flourishing in every corner of the world. The simple fact is that LCCs are not going away and are actually increasing in numbers and market share. It is my opinion that fare families are the best means for traditional carriers as well as high value LCCs (e.g. JetBlue, Virgin America) to compete beyond price. As I pointed out in my presentation, every part of the distribution travel value chain will be impacted by the introduction of fare families, but despite these challenges, I am hopeful the concept will take hold. One important aspect of the shopping process that would need to change for both OTAs and Meta-search, is the ability through mouse-overs or other similar UI techniques, to provide the fare family advantage to the customer at the point of sale. See Frontierairlines.com as an example. What I envision is that a customer goes on an OTA or Meta-search site, gets back the same fare from both a LCC and a legacy or high value LCC and when the consumer mouses over that quote, the option of paying a bit more to include services such as baggage, seat assignments, access to on board entertainment systems, meals, on board Wi-Fi, and other emerging services at different family price points. It is my belief this will be the only way airlines can truly compete against the LCCs by promoting a differentiated product fighting the trend towards commoditization.

AA's battle with Kayak

There has been a lot of media buzz regarding the announcement that AA was pulling their inventory from meta-search engine Kayak. The news was first leaked by Tech Crunch on July 23rd. The article stated that AA was pulling their inventory from Kayak and considering doing the same for Orbitz, which Kayak uses to supplement direct connections with airlines. As originally conceived by SideStep, the meta-search application would satisfy two important market needs: (1) consumers like to compare fares from multiple sources through a single query (2) airlines could benefit from direct bypass of other more costly channels especially OTAs such as Expedia. SideStep was originally launched as a downloaded application that automatically appeared in a sidebar when the user visited sites such as Expedia and entered their flight request information. Recognizing the challenges with downloaded apps, SideStep a few years later moved to a completely Web-based comparative shopping platform. Other sites such as Mobissimo, Farechase and Kayak soon appeared. (note: Farechase was actually the first such meta-search engine and was acquired by Yahoo! back in 2004). At first the OTAs were very negative towards these new meta-search engines. The only exception was Orbitz where Kayak founder Steve Haftner was also one of the original founders of Orbitz and thus had particular pull with his former company. At the PhoCusWright Travdex conference in the spring of 2005 in Dallas, Bill Bliss at that time a senior marketing VP at Expedia, presented a session on why mega-search was a bad idea due to the lack of customer ownership (meta-search engines do not fulfill tickets, but instead send the user to a supplier or OTA site). This negative position soon changed as the OTAs recognized the value of these meta-search engines in generating leads. In fact as the market dynamics shifted and airlines were faced with skyrocketing price of fuel, most of the major airlines stopped compensating meta-search for referrals. At the same time the OTAs continued to provide compensation to these sites. An insider at one of the major meta-search companies told me that as much as 60% of the company's referral revenue was coming from OTAs. AA's decision to pull out of Kayak was based on this reality where more revenue was being shifted to OTAs rather than the AA.com site. The threat to withdraw from Orbitz is more serious and as of this writing has not been implemented. Unfortunately even the best airlines still miss the nature of the Web. Rather than limiting reference sites, AA and other major carriers should be syndicating their booking engine on as many sites as possible. The Web has an unlimited number of specialty sites and syndication has the opportunity to gain incremental revenue from a variety of sources. Comments by AA and other carriers that their dollars are better spend in SEM (Search Engine Marketing), are a bit silly as their brand is so ingrained in the mind of the American consumer that finding AA.com through Google is not a challenge. The idea whereby all consumer traffic could be generated through an airline's site conflicts with the very nature of the Web which is constantly expanding and fragmenting users based on their interest groups. The consumer wants comparative shopping and actions by AA with Kayak demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to the true nature of the Web.

GNEs and GDS bypass

I just returned from a two week business trip to the Middle East working with a client in Kuwait. I've fallen behind again in my blog entries and I will try to rectify that over the next few days.

First up, a discussion of a recent article in Flight Magazine about demise of the so called "GNEs" (GDS New Entrants or "Genies"). This article bemoans the lack of success of these alternative distribution initiatives citing the sale of the G2Swithworks' agent POS to Travelport and the refocus of ITA Software to create a new CRS for Air Canada, as the end of an industry push towards alternative distribution. This article missed a fundamental issue in regards to the GNEs, the source of their difficulties has to due with poor market positioning. To set the record straight, the term GNE was coined by Derek Lewitton while he was Director of Distribution Strategy and Planning at United Airlines. It was 2005 the GDSs and the airlines were in heated discussions regarding new agreements. The prior few years had seen a reduction in segment fee charges by the GDSs related to the airlines willingness to provide total contact (including Web only fares). Derek organized a meeting with large corporate customers and TMCs introducing these new companies (ITA software, G2 Switchworks, Farelogix) labeling them GNEs. Also in attendance were TRX and Cliqbook. The travel and general press latched on to this labeling and throughout the year there were a flood of articles stating how these GNEs would use modern technology to bypass the traditional mainframe based GDSs. The root of the problem was not in these new companies' technology, but rather the positioning of these firms as replacements for the GDS. This was an absurd notion from the start. The power of the GDS lies in the 100,000 of travel agency desktops deployed as well as the engine behind online travel agencies (OTAs) such as Expedia. No single company, no matter how well funded can displace the dominance of the GDSs in the market overnight. In fact, one of the black holes that drained lots of cash and development time at G2 Switchworks was the development of a neutral agent POS. Meeting the complex requirements of the travel agent is not an easy task as many prior attempts (e.g. TRX's SELEX) have yielded limited results. Ironically it was this very application that was desperately needed by Travelport who operate three different mainframes (e.g. Apollo, Galileo and Worldspan). Since 2005 I have been involved with a number of initiatives in both the corporate and leisure space which involved a direct connection into an airline's CRS bypassing the GDS. The reality is that bypass is an evolutionary not revolutionary process. In fact the GDSs themselves are working to migrate their remaining legacy mainframe technologies to more distributed server based computing. The bottom line is that traditional GDS bypass will continue to happen especially as airlines unbundle their services to maximize ancillary revenue. ITA Software's re-engineering of the Air Canada CRS attacks the issue at the source as most airlines operate their CRS as a partition of the GDS with the same limitations that exist with mainframe GDS technology. The most striking limitation is the coupling of the passenger information with the transaction symptomatic of a 1960s IT design created to maximize throughput during an era of very limited bandwidth. With the need for airlines to become more customer centric, this coupling prevents dynamic pricing based on customer value, a basic tenant of CRM. The evolution away from this legacy environment will continue as the GDSs evolve and alternative distribution continues to gain steam on an individual project basis. This is all happening away from the scrutiny of the travel press, until the next round of GDS / airline negotiations. This topic is far from dead just not quite as public as it was in 2005.

Airline Ancillary Revenue and the Long Tail

This week I am London and I had the pleasure of presenting to and participating in the Datalex User Group meeting. Datalex who has been a Travel Tech client for many years, provides a distribution platform to airlines and travel agencies. The audience consisted of major carriers and travel distributors. One of the hottest topics we discussed is the concept of ancillary revenue. This can be defined in a number of ways. The traditional model was developed by low cost carrier RyanAir who essentially charges for all services (bags, refreshments, etc..) and in addition also sells merchandise on board. Due to the fuel crisis we've seen the legacy carriers follow suit with baggage charges and other fees. The airline term is ancillary revenue, but I believe the real opportunity is the Long Tail. At the conference, I had the pleasure of meeting Chase Cunningham most recently of the now defunct low cost carrier Skybus. Chase was in charge of ancillary revenue for SkyBus. Chase spoke about selling everything from in flight advertising to merchandise (a la RynanAir) . Due to his efforts Skybus even sold Ohio State football tickets on their Website.
I believe the coming wave in mobile and in-flight technology presents an interesting opportunity for airlines to expand the concept of ancillary revenue. By expanding the ancillary revenue definition beyond fees for formerly free services, to more of a Long Tail concept, airlines have a unique opportunity to help promote airport merchants, and destination services. The mobile platform in particular is an excellent way to provide more destination type of services. Rearden Commerce a major corporate booking tool supplier has released a Blackberry version of their product that allows ancillary services such as show tickets and restaurants reservations to be made on the smartphone. There is no reason airlines could not provide a similar service and profit from the referral. When onboard Internet arrives courtesy of suppliers such as AirCell, the airline can use the captive audience to sell a much more expanded version of SkyMall. Now a days when you go to the movies, all sorts of advertising is displayed while you wait for the previews to start. Airlines have an equally captive audience. Of course care needs to be taken to not overload the passenger with promotions as that could anger the traveler and hurt the brand. Providing the right balance of destination oriented content for the on board and mobile experience is in the near future and represents an important ancillary revenue opportunity for airlines.

Farelogix and ITA software: An update on GNEs

A news release late last month announced a new relationship between Farelogix and ITA Software. First a bit of disclosure, Farelogix has been a Travel Tech Consulting Inc. (TTCI) client and I have known the founder of ITA Software since 1997 when I participated in a presentation at Sun Microsystems (another TTCI client) where Jeremy Wertheimer first presented the ITA faring solution as part of a visit by a major TMC. Many in the corporate travel world may falsely believe that the concept of a GNE (GDS New Entrant a term coined by a former UA executive back in 2005) is old news and is no longer relevant based on the 5 year agreements signed last year between the major airlines and GDS. How are the GNEs continuing to survive and why have the three original GNEs embraced each other? It is important to note that G2Swithworks the other major GNE who received lots of press in 2005 already has a relationship with ITA Software as well as sharing a funding relationship with Texas Pacific Group who now also owns Sabre). In 2006, ITA shifted their focus away from GDS bypass to building a next generation CRS (Central Reservation System) for their "beachhead client" Air Canada. Farelogix has successfully continued to sign direct connection agreements with major airlines and was selected to provide the plumbing for BCD Travel's Renaissance Project. There are four major trends that continue to provide opportunity for these so-called GNEs

1. Unbundling of Air Pricing- The move by the airlines to provide a menu approach to pricing that charges different fares for different levels of services (e.g. a different price if you don't check bags or change your ticket) is being implemented or considered by all the major airlines. Whether the traditional mainframe-based platform of the GDS can accommodate this new pricing strategy is still an open question.
   
2. Leverage to Negotiate lower GDS Fees - Another key issue keeping the GNE activity alive is whether GDS fees can be further reduced beyond current agreements. The fixed costs in operating a GDS may limit how low their fees can go in the next round of negotiations. Even though we are about 3-4 years away from the renegotiation, airlines continue to support alternative distribution as a way to provide leverage for future negotiations.
   
3. Flexibility to Control Distribution - In 2006, Farelogix released its Distribution Manager software which enables " TMCs to effectively control the sourcing for each supplier's inventory through preferred booking sources, while maintaining contractual commitments to the various Global Distribution Systems (GDS) and direct supplier relationships." This control over distribution may be used by the TMC or corporation to gain further leverage in airline negotiations
   
4. Shifting the Aggregation point to the TMC - The reality of travel distribution is that content continues to remain fragmented. For example, corporate buyers continue to push hotel reservations through the GDS (either through self-booking or call center activity) but a good portion of hotels are still booked via the telephone. In Europe, where travel inventory has always been fragmented, a need to integrate boutique hotels, rail, ferry and other components into a super PNR is still required. BTN highlighted this in a recent article regarding HRG and BCD super PNR efforts.
   

So back to the issue at hand, why a partnership with ITA and Farelogix? The answer is simple, ITA has proven over the past 8-9 years to have the best 3rd party shopping and faring application. Farelogix has taken a more agnostic approach to faring offering SITA faring application, accessing the GDS faring models or now with this agreement offing ITA Software as an alternative.
Please don't misinterpret my comments here as I am NOT voicing the old hackney message that "The GDS are dinosaurs and are history" These companies still are at the heart of travel distribution both online and off. The ongoing viability of GNEs due to the factors above will continue to push the market to provide a more flexible distribution solution that ultimately allows suppliers to better segment their clients and target their best customers with special offers (a basic tenant of CRM). As the ultimate purchases of business travel, the corporate buying community needs to pay attention to this trends to insure that total supply is offered and that the corporation in conjunction with their TMC controls the distribution choices allowing additional leverage in supplier negotiations.

Are Airlines a Commodity?

I am writing from Houston Texas where I attended a consultant's forum sponsored by Continental Airlines. The session was primarily focused on the corporate market , but did include a review of some very impressive stats, including some slides which showed that CO is the best US network carrier for on-time performance and lowest baggage loss.

Part of the session included a meeting with Continental's Chairman & CEO, Larry Kellner and Jeff Smisek, Continental's president. Though I still doubt whether Continental can break the commodity label, these two executives did represent a breath of fresh air. Both gentleman were very open and candid about their plans for expansion, relationship with customers and respect for their employees. I left the meeting wishing Continental had a bigger presence in the San Fransisco Bay Area.