REPORT

2nd meeting of the ACTE ADVISORY BOARD FOR AN INDEPENDENT STUDY INTO THE IATA CORPORATE CLIENT IDENTIFICATION SERVICE (CCIS)

- via conference call -
12 June 2001

Agenda Items
Terms of Reference for Advisory Board to Independent Study on Proposed Changes to IATA CCIS
Terms of Reference for Independent Study on Proposed Changes to RP 1778

Agenda Item 1: Opening of Meeting
1. The Chairperson of the Advisory Board, Nancy Holtzman (ACTE), opened the meeting via conference call at 0800 hours EST on Tuesday, 12 June 2001. She reminded the group that the purpose of the meeting was to finalise the ToRs and any other outstanding issues. The attendance list is shown in Attachment A. Regrets had been received from Cheryl Hutchinson (American Management Systems), Dennis Bailey (Institute of Travel Management) and Marilyn Clifton (Oracle). It was noted that Cindy Perper (Invensys) had not been an active participant to date and the Secretary was requested to determine if Invensys would still like to continue to hold a seat on the Advisory Board.
ACTION: SECRETARY

Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Report of Last Meeting (17 May 2001)
2. The Advisory Board approved as published the Report from the meeting held on 17 May. There was a question regarding the development of a detailed flow chart of CCIS data. The Secretary, Mike Muller (IATA), confirmed that this was being developed by the CCIS Task Force.
ACTION: CCIS TASK FORCE

3. It was noted that the draft terms of Reference provided for representation from 5 corporates but to date only 4 had agreed to participate. It was reaffirmed that input from corporations was crucial to ensure that the proposed study would reflect their needs. The Chairman was requested to search for one extra corporate who would be able to participate in the work of the Advisory Board, or two if Invensys no longer wished to participate.
ACTION: ACTE

Agenda Item 3: Selection of Consulting Company
4. Prior to the conference call, the Advisory Board members had been invited to send to the Secretary the names of consulting companies that they believed should be considered for the proposed CCIS study. The Secretary had produced a list which was reviewed, and various comments were exchanged regarding the advantages/disadvantages of each company.

5. The consensus of the group was that a set of criteria should first be agreed upon so as to be able to judge each consultancy using the same yardstick. The Advisory Board developed the following criteria:
• Established presence in USA, some European too;
• Data flow expertise/technology understanding
• Non biased
• Available resources/capacity to perform
• Credibility

6. The group concluded that it would be ideal to contact 4 consultancies; 2 large firms and 2 small/medium sized ones. It was agreed that the 2 large firms identified on the list would be approached. Regarding the small/medium sized consultancies, due to lack of pertinent background information, the group felt that a formal vote should be taken only after a short descriptive "profile" of each company could be produced. The Secretary volunteered to compile this information and circulate it with an invitation for 2 votes from each Advisory Board member, excluding ACTE and IATA.
ACTION: SECRETARY

7. Regarding a set procedures to facilitate the selection of the preferred consulting company, the Secretary volunteered to draft a framework for the consideration of the Advisory Board.
ACTION: SECRETARY

Agenda Item 4: Finalisation of Terms of References (ToRs)
8. The Secretary noted that at the first meeting of the Advisory Board, two documents had been developed to describe the deliverables of the Advisory Board itself, and the deliverables from an independent study into CCIS. The CCIS Task Force had subsequently reviewed and endorsed the ToR document that outlined the roles and responsibility of the Advisory Board as shown in Attachment B.

9. The Task Force also had reviewed the draft ToR for the independent study into CCIS. It was proposed to clarify some wording in the "purpose" and "scope" sections. This was agreed. Regarding "objectives", a member proposed that additional wording be added to clarify that the consultants should also focus on recommendations outside of CCIS, e.g. the development of codes of conduct for data use. However, the group concluded that whereas they would welcome any data privacy/security proposals produced through the study, they wished the consultants to understand that their main focus was on CCIS itself as described in IATA Recommended Practice 1778. The finally agreed version of the ToR document that outlines the deliverables for the independent study is shown in Attachment C.

Date and Place of Next Meeting
10. It was agreed that the next meeting would take place on 25 July, preferably in New York. However, conference calls would likely be necessary before this date.

Close of Meeting
11. There being no further business, the meeting at 0945 hours EST.

Back to top

Attendance Record

Back to top

Terms of Reference for Advisory Board to Independent Study on Proposed Changes to IATA CCIS

Background
(Please see attached Terms of Reference, ToR, for Independent Study.)

Executive Summary
In response to the concerns about the implementation of the IATA Corporate Client Identification Service (CCIS) raised by the travel agency and corporate travel management community, the IATA CCIS Task Force (CCISTF) is investigating the possibility of an independent study. The purpose of the study is to objectively review the concerns of various parties within the industry and determine if there is a way to implement CCIS to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned (see attached document of Terms of Reference for the independent study).

In order to ensure the study's fairness and transparency, the CCISTF has approached the Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) to be part of an Advisory Board composed of representatives from Corporates, Travel Industry Groups, Airlines, and GDSs. ACTE has volunteered to chair the Advisory Board and IATA will provide a Secretary.

This Advisory Board will ideally have representatives from 5 corporations (of which 3 based in North America and 2 based in Europe), 1 travel agent, 2 airlines, 1 GDSs and one agency association. Other industry parties may participate on an ad hoc basis or through correspondence.

Purpose & Scope
The purpose of this Advisory Board is to provide a neutral arena to support the progress of this independent study. The responsibilities of the Advisory Board are as follows :

•Advise on Terms of Reference for the independent study.
• Provide assistance in the identification of the consultant.
• Devise communication plan with CCISTF for regular industry updates and final report production.
• Meet on a regular basis to review consultant reports and advise on progress to the CCISTF.
• Oversee consultant's progress and ensure deadlines are met.
• Review final report from consultant with CCISTF. · Recommend way forward for CCIS.
• Evaluate future role, if any, for the Advisory Board.

The CCISTF will select a consultant and will handle the negotiations of costs for the study. The CCISTF will also make the final decision regarding the information and method for industry publication of the study's outcome.

The scope of the study will be CCIS only, it will not address any other general industry distribution issues, for example, the use of MIDT data, other than to identify their impact on CCIS.

Objectives
The objectives of this Advisory Board are to:
1. Represent the travel industry community.
2. Monitor the study's progress in a fair and open manner.
3. Make sure the timelines are respected.
4. Provide advice to CCISTF on study's progress and outcome.
5. Develop a communications vehicle to provide public access to the process via ACTE and IATA.
6. Individual Advisory Board members may discuss CCIS issues in public representing the views of their own organisations, however, all official communications of the Advisory Board will be issued by the Chairman and Secretary only.

Constraints & Assumptions
It is assumed that the representatives who have accepted to be on the Advisory Board will provide all necessary help, assistance and information required to ensure its successful completion, and that their participation will be in the frame of the ToR defined by the CCISTF.

It is also assumed that the Advisory Board will approach this study as a neutral body and act fairly, openly, and transparently throughout the course of this study.

Procedural issues, recommendations or formal action of the Advisory Board requires a majority vote. Dissenting views would be registered.

It is assumed that members will gain an appropriate level of understanding and preparedness for meetings of the Advisory Board.

Members are constrained in that they may not divulge the identities of the consulting companies considered for this study.

This study needs to be completed as soon as possible. An "approach" for the study is detailed below.

Approach
•Review the Terms of Reference of the Independent study and advise on them.
•Provide input on methodology for the consultant once selected by CCISTF.
• Meet at milestones dates defined with the consultant to review progress reports.
• Communicate with CCISTF on regular basis to ensure the timeliness of updates, progress reviews, planning, and approval of next steps.
• Review of final report and advise CCISTF on an appropriate industry publication method.

(For additional schedule details see ToR for the independent study.)

Deliverables
The deliverables will be defined with the consultant in accordance with the ToR of the Independent Study's Objectives and Schedule, and agreed by the CCISTF.

Back to top

Terms of Reference for Independent Study on Proposed Changes to RP 1778

Page
1. Background
2. Executive Summary
3. Purpose 3. Objectives
4. Constraints and Assumptions
5. Schedule
6. Reporting
6. Guidelines for Consultant
6. Deliverables
7. Glossary of Terms

Background
Airlines and their agents carry out a significant amount of business with corporations. A need has been identified within the industry to improve the quality of the data used in performance tracking systems, and provide enhanced recognition and other benefits to the corporates.

IATA Recommended Practice 1778 - Corporate Client Identification Service (CCIS) - was adopted in 1995 to provide for an 8-character code to identify multinational as well as national corporate accounts on airline passenger tickets. Thus the travel industry would have a standard system for tracking air travel undertaken by individual corporations. This system was developed in recognition that many airlines currently operate their own proprietary tracking schemes.

However, the generic system managed by IATA has proven to be unpopular because of fears that corporations and their travellers could be identified. Airlines, too, have voiced concerns that other airlines would be able to decipher the identity of a corporation by reading the codes on their tickets. Additionally, there is a problem in finding suitable space to show these codes on tickets issued in North America.

Furthermore, the emergence of airline "alliances" provoked a re-visit of the provisions of RP 1778. As a consequence, changes to RP 1778 have been developed to allow for the exchange of Corporate Client codes via the Passenger Name Record (PNR).

Executive Summary
The changes to RP 1778 that allow the exchange of codes via the PNR have been submitted to various governments around the world for their approval. However, IATA recently withdrew RP 1778 from the US Department of Transportation (DoT) after awaiting their approval for over a year. The pending RP 1778 was withdrawn to allow IATA to address the concerns raised by the travel agency and corporate travel management community in their comments to the DOT.

Part of the problem has been a lack of clear, public information describing what data would be exchanged between corporates, airlines, travel agents, GDSs and other third parties. Travel industry officials cited such concerns as:
1. Would CCIS be anti-competitive?
2. Would data privacy and security of corporates be protected?
3. Could CCIS data be collected and misused by third parties?
4. Could CCIS data be merged with GDS products such as GDS Marketing Information Data Tapes (MIDT)?
5. Could airlines make use of the client code mandatory as part of their negotiated programs with corporate customers?

As a consequence, IATA has created a CCIS Task Force to study these concerns in more detail. The goal of the Task Force is to determine how CCIS can be effectively revised to address the concerns to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved.

A key initiative proposed by the Task Force is an independent study to be completed by a consultant to clarify the concerns of the travel agency and corporate travel management community. The study would recommend solutions to alleviate these concerns and facilitate CCIS implementation. The Task Force proposes that the results of this study be made public.

Purpose
The purpose of the independent CCIS study is to objectively review industry concerns as expressed in the DoT Docket and subsequently in trade publications and recommend whether to proceed with CCIS or not. Stakeholders from corporates, airlines, travel industry groups and GDSs as selected by the study's Advisory Board will be approached to participate.

Objectives
The objectives of this study are threefold:
1. Identify the different viewpoints about CCIS within the industry.
2. Assess the positive and negative impact of CCIS implementation.
3. Recommend a way forward for CCIS, if any.

Scope
This study will look at CCIS only. It is not the purpose of this study to discuss other general industry distribution issues, for example, the use of MIDT data, other than to identify their impact on CCIS.

The geographic scope of this study will initially focus on the stakeholders in North American and European markets.

Stakeholders from the industry will be identified and approached to participate in the survey.

The recommendations resulting from this study should be available 6-8 weeks after the commencement of the study. For the purposes of the ITQ, the bidder should assume that between 30-40 interviews will be required, the majority by telephone and/or e-mail.

Constraints and Assumptions
The study assumes that all airlines who agree to support this study will provide all necessary help, assistance and information required to ensure its successful completion; and that the costs of the study's assignment to a Consultant will be shared equally among the supporting airlines.

It is anticipated that not all airline members of the CCIS Task Force will be in a position to immediately commit funds to pay for this study. In such case the costs will be divided equally among those airlines that can commit quickly after receiving an estimate of the costs. It might be possible that the costs of the study eventually could be refunded by imposing a higher subscription fee to those CCIS-subscribing airlines which did not help fund the study.

This study needs to be completed as soon as possible. A schedule for the study is detailed in the next section.

Airlines will be required to adhere to applicable legal requirements concerning the sharing of information.

Back to top

Schedule

ITO=Invitation to Quote

Reporting
The Consultant will report to the Advisory Board and CCISTF. The IATA Secretary will serve as the central point of contact.

The CCISTF and the Advisory Board will meet on a regular basis to ensure the timeliness of updates, progress reviews, planning, and approval of next steps.

The final report, recommendations, etc, resulting from this study will be agreed and signed off by the CCISTF prior to any external submission, publication, or communication of said documents.

Guidelines for Consultant
The returned ITQ will recommend and describe the methodology of how the Consultant will report on the specified objectives and will include estimates on costs, time scales, and the anticipated number of people/groups to be contacted. It is anticipated by the CCISTF that the Consultant will contact some but not all members of the concerned stakeholder groups.

The study must assess the feasibility of implementing CCIS and highlight any impacts to stakeholders and third parties - GDSs, ATPCO, BSPs, ARC, etc.

Due date for returned ITQs: ??

Primary point of contact: Mike Muller, Secretary IATA CCIS Task Force

Deliverables
The Consultant will deliver the study in accordance with the previously detailed Objectives and Schedule.

The study must be submitted to the Advisory Board and the CCISTF.

Glossary of Terms
Consultant – An independent, objective third party that is contracted to assess a situation and provide impartial advice on how to improve that situation.

CCIS – Corporate Client Identification Service

CCISTF – CCIS Task Force: a group of airlines and industry suppliers who work on CCIS.

GDS – Global Distribution System, e.g. Sabre

IATA – International Air Transport Association

RP 1778 – Recommended Practice 1778: Corporate Client Identification Service (CCIS), a proposed air travel industry client coding system for corporate customers. Changes to RP 1778 were submitted to the US Department of Transportation for approval in December 1999 and then withdrawn in February 2001.

Back to top

Back to IATA Reports