Second, the article does not note that per diem for a CONUS city is broken into two parts. The first part is for lodging, the second is for meals and incidentals. Government workers on CONUS travel, under GSA rules, receive up to the Government rate for hotels in an area (with some exceptions). However, that part of the per diem is limited by what the employee actually spends. Employees booking their own hotels have no incentive to book at a Motel 6 or La Quinta that is below per diem if they can book at a Hilton at Government rate. Also, since the per diem for meals and incidentals is paid at a flat city rate, if an employee can book a hotel that serves breakfast on Government rate, that means that he/she has more money to spend on other meals and incidentals.

Third, in some cases Government travelers simply leave hotel selection to TMC/CTOs. It appears that their hotel selections are probably guided by the commissions paid.

Fourth, this chapter does not discuss how CONUS per diem is paid on a 24 hour clock. This is a GSA phenomenon which is often confusing to Government travelers and impacts on per diem for short trips. I know that under the rules in effect the last time I traveled, GSA assumed that airlines provided meals. Has this/is this being changed in light of the fact that many airlines are no longer providing meals or are charging travelers for meals?

Fifth, recently airlines have begun adding charges for first and second bags, meals, blankets, etc.. I am curious as to what, if anything, is being done to account for these differences between airlines in city pair rates? Also, does the traveler absorb these extra costs as part of his/her per diem?

by Scott Goldsmith

One of the challenges I face is travelers feel that they can get a better deal searching themselves on the internet, rather than using the States TMC.  One reoccurring theme is that travelers are unaware that different  pricing models exist between the airlines, the 4 GDS’ and the  internet booking tools and that some airlines may only advertise on some, or not advertise at all.

Although the airline and GDS practices are perfectly fair and legal, no different than choosing which yellow page book an airline wants to advertise in, the unintended consequence is a traveler who may choose only to use one online booking engine, unaware that the tool he may choose doesn’t have the airline that can get there non-stop vs. going through one or multiple hubs.

One of our jobs is to educate travelers so they understand the differences and trying to educate the traveler is sometimes an uphill battle. With the vast number of people traveling for the government, it is sometimes a daunting task.   So how do we do this? Forums, educational manuals, on-line tools.   These are all effective methods of training, and we travel managers should be putting this in our toolbox when we explain the benefits of using out TMC vs. searching on their own.

This certification program is also a great venue that explains the pluses and minuses of the GDS, airlines and internet booking tools. Maybe there should be a pared down of this course for the traveler and make it a requirement for every person who travels take the course.

by Tim Hay

Although the commercial airlines provided major support to the government during World War II, following the war they were generally used as a last resort for emergency movement of traffic or when a senior officer insisted on using air rather than surface transportation.

Airlines were struggling in their attempts to gain entry into this market and made significant headway in 1940. Most of the airlines serving Washington DC created and funded an entity called Combined Airlines Tickets Offices (CATO) to provide service to government accounts.

The CATO offices were also formed in other cities to service specific government markets. These programs were never part of the industry program that would eventually become Joint Airline Military Traffic Offices (JAMTO) 13 years later. On November 4, 1948, frustrated air industry decision makers concluded that getting into the military and government market was an industry problem.

They authorized M.F. Redfern, Vice President of Traffic and Executive Secretary of the Air Traffic Conference to negotiate with the military agencies on their behalf. As a result of these negotiations on April 20, 1949 the ATC Military Bureau, forerunner of the SatoTravel Troop Movement Section, today the oldest branch of Satotravel, came into existence. By January 1951, Joint Military Air Transportation Offices represented 31 airline carriers.

With ATC releasing a draft of the first Military Representation Resolution the way was paved for the establishment of joint airline offices on Military installations. The first Military bases to have JAMTO’s Offices were at Lackland AFB, Great Lakes Naval Base, and San Francisco-Oakland.

As a result of the Transportation offices opening on the military basis SATO Scheduled Airline Traffic Offices travel became a name that just about every Military person recognized as the travel office for the Military. This is just a small portion of the SATO history from 1940-1990, from the beginning to the early years of incorporation.

I have been employed with Satotravel for 15 years and the history for the company which originally was wholly owned by the air carrier is steeped in tradition. The “can do” attitudes, devotion, high standards and professionalism displayed by the air carrier employees and the guiding principles of the program have carried over to today’s CWT/Satotravel, and they continue to be evident in our work force.

Having worked in a Full service travel office, I have been a part of the Implementation of several government accounts, but it was exciting to learn the GSA Travel Services Solutions portion of contracting. I have worked with both the GSA TSS and full and open competition contracts that are conducted by a government entity and find them both a challenge. They are both handled basically the same except with the TSS contract the rates have already been set so that the rate isn’t as much as a factor.

You can always negotiate less than the rate posted in order to secure the business if necessary. The subcontracting plans that the large businesses are required to provide contracts to small companies makes it possible for small and minority companies to get a piece of the pie.

If this wasn’t part of the GSA service the smaller companies would become non existent and the larger TMC’s would have a monopoly on the money we pay to run our government. I know in our company there have been several times when business was awarded to a small business because of the 23% minimum small business participation goal requirement.

I was fascinated to learned that 90% of travel agencies are small businesses in communities throughout our country which was very surprising to me. In the previous chapters when I learned how the Hotel reporting worked and reported to ARC the reservations made, I wondered how they could possibly have accurate accounting of rooms and hotels that were booked for travel. Working with groups you have better control of the number of rooms blocked, but transient usage would be almost impossible to capture.

Even with groups, I have had scenarios where some of the groups who work with our homeland security may contract to go into a hotel 2 weeks from now and 2 days prior to arrival the group is cut in half or the group cancels completely because their security expertise is needed in another city. Since we move groups into very obscure locations in Alaska, the weather plays a big part on whether the traveler arrives at his destination as planned or is stranded and we have to book a hotel where they become stranded. I don’t think there will ever be a system to capture all the hotels booked and the length of stay.

One good tool that can be used is if the group has a credit card that will capture the hotel property number into a separate data base. This still would not give you an accurate number of nights used because the rate charged to the Individuals credit card may include taxes and other state/hotel charges. It would also be very difficult to capture information from some the Bed and breakfast properties that we have used in remote locations because the charge may be connected to a restaurant and not the actual property that the Government employee stayed in.

I realize that the government can’t use the Non traditional travel agencies such as Expedia, Travelocity and Orbits but what a blessing they are to the hotel, car, air and cruise companies. The fact that they are able to sell rooms that the hotels have determined would be unoccupied at a very cheap rate puts heads in beds and will keep the rooms from being empty.

I myself have used their services to book travel to a quick weekend vacation by looking to see what was really cheap at the last minute and heading to the airport to take a vacation at a preferred location at rates that are cheaper than the travel agent rate. I have had co-workers who book their cruises 2 weeks prior to the cruise and they get a suite with a balcony at rates that would normally place them in the bottom of the ship in an inside room. I say hooray for these companies that are selling the distressed inventory and helping to keep the hotels, air and car rental companies profitable. The Certified Government Travel Professional Training Course has been a lot of information that I will use it in planning and assisting my Government groups.

I have a better understanding of how the Airlines, Hotels, Rental cars, Electronic Travel systems and Payment systems work. I especially found the section on the US Government Ethics Standards of interest and have printed all the reference materials and read it and I know I this information will help me in guiding my clients to make informed decisions. I also understand what their limitations and abilities are.

I think the program is very informative and gives you tons of web sites and referrals to sites to assist you in making informed decisions for your government accounts.

While code sharing is beneficial to many airlines, it can be misleading for travelers who believe they have purchased a ticket on one airline only to discover that they are actually flying on another. Or worse, when the traveler believes they are staying on a single airline on a multi-leg trip only to discover that they are not only changing planes, but also changing airlines in their connecting city.

An important factor that a traveler should be aware of when purchasing code share tickets is that airline carriers that participate in code sharing are required to identify code share flights on schedules and passenger itineraries by marking them with an asterisk or other “easily identifiable mark” along with the name of the actual transporting carrier.

Another important factor is when checking in, typically the traveler is supposed to check in with and board the airline that is operating the flight, and not the carrier that sold them the ticket. During this time, the traveler will need to confirm that their frequent flier miles have been recorded if applicable.

A third factor is if a traveler needs to change their itinerary or request a specific seat while at the airport, then the traveler should contact the carrier that sold them the ticket rather than the carrier they are actually flying.

Finally, while the selling airline is most often responsible for reservation issues, lost or damaged baggage claims are generally submitted to the last airline that handled the traveler’s luggage at the destination.

By Susan Garrett

The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.

What is Code sharing?

A code share is an agreement between airlines that allows the sale of seats by a partner airline on another airline’s flight as if the flight were its own.  Code shares can provide a cost-effective way for a carrier to enter new markets by using the facilities and operations of a partner carrier.

This can be misleading for travelers who believe they have purchased a ticket on one airline only to discover they are actually flying another. Or worse, when that traveler believes they are staying on a single airline on a multi-leg trip only to discover that they are not only changing planes, but changing airlines, too, in their connecting city.

How do I know if I am booking a code share flight?

Under U.S. Department of Transportation rules, carriers must clearly disclose code share flights on schedules and passenger itineraries by marking them with an asterisk or other “easily identifiable mark” along with the name of the actual transporting carrier.

Code shares are identified in our E Travel System with an “Operated By” statement next to the carrier operating the flight selected.

Where should I check-in if I booked a code share flight?

Typically, you should check in with and board the airline that is operating the flight, not the carrier that sold you the ticket.

How do I change my itinerary or request a specific seat?

Most airlines will tell you that you need to contact the carrier that sold you the ticket rather than the carrier you are actually flying.

Which airline is responsible for reservation issues or lost baggage?

While the selling airline is most often responsible for reservation issues, lost or damaged baggage claims are generally submitted to the last airline that handled your luggage at your destination.

Are there price differences on code share flights?

There can be pricing discrepancies on the same code share flights sold by two different airlines. The reason for this is that each airline sets its own prices in a code share situation to preserve the spirit of competition.

Contract carriers with code share business agreements cannot obligate their code share partner’s inventories for YCA contract fares. In the E Travel System, travelers may see a fare listed as a GSA City Pair until it is priced, and then the fare becomes a standard commercial fare. Only those fares highlighted as a GSA City Pair when selected are the actual contract fares. Travelers should check the fare rules for all other flights to identify any flight restrictions.

Will the code share partner accept my Frequent Flier Miles?

Here is another complexity: A code share does not guarantee the partner airlines accept each other’s frequent flier miles. Travelers will need to confirm that their frequent flier miles have been recorded when they check in at the ticket counter.

by Carole Byrd

Disclaimer: The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.  Use of this equipment is consistent with the agency’s policy governing limited personal use.

Once the Finance Office received the documents, a technician verified the per diem rates and quarter day calculations for first and last day as well as other expenses.  Voucher receipts were verified and any voucher with a discrepancy was sent back to the traveler for correction.   Once the voucher was deemed correct, the finance technician would classify expenses into Budget Object Codes (BOC) and information such as the employee’s name, SSN and Accounting were written on to a coding sheet.  The coding sheet was sent to a Data Transcriber to enter into the financial system.   This process was labor intensive, prone to error and in many cases reimbursement of a travel voucher could take several weeks.

In the mid 1990′s my agency implemented Travel Manager, an electronic COTS travel system that was hosted in-house.  With the implementation of this system we went from a paper based travel process to a fully automated one.  Travel Manager contained locations with applicable per diem and performed calculations.  The electronic routing allowed documents to be reviewed and approved electronically.  Once a document was approved it was interfaced to the financial system daily and travelers were reimbursed for expenses within a few days of submitting a voucher.  Although a Travel Management Center (TMC) was available, many travelers continued to call the airline and hotels directly to make reservations and recorded the cost in Travel Manager.

In 1998 the Smartpay program was introduced that made credit cards available to frequent travelers and by 2001 the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) required travelers to use a TMC to book official travel.  The FTR also requires travelers to use the City Pair Program except in limited situations.  The fairs offered by the airlines are one way which allows for complex multiple destination trips. The City Pair program offers very competitive airfare that can be discounted up to 70% off of unrestricted coach fare and offers benefits such as no advance purchase, no minimum or maximum length stay, last seat availability, no blackout dates, no penalties/fees for rebooking and tickets are fully refundable.

In 2003, GSA awarded contracts for E-Gov Travel Services (ETS) to three vendors and amended the Federal Travel Regulations to require agencies to implement one of the systems by September 30, 2006.  My agency awarded a contract and began implementing ETS in the summer of 2004.  The ETS had many of the same features that the Travel Manager system had with the addition of integration with the TMC.  By using the ETS, travelers have a one-stop-shopping for travel where the process of creating the authorization also includes making on-line reservations for common carriers, hotels and rental cars.  Vouchers are easy to complete as all the traveler needs to do is to update the estimated expenses from the authorization, electronically attach receipts (which are used for post payment audits) and electronically sign to route for approval.

In 2005 Government agencies were required to implement split disbursement.  Split disbursement provides a high level of convenience to the traveler to designate charges they made to their government credit card be paid directly to the bank through the vouchering process.    Another program that began about the same time is Fedrooms.  This program initiated by GSA is managed by Carlson Wagonlit who negotiates rates and terms with hotels in cities that have a large number of visits from Federal travelers.  Hotels that participate are FEMA and ADA compliant, have a least a two star rating from Mobil Travel Guide or AAA rating, they must accept government travel cards and other forms of payment, the rate must be at or below the government per diem rate, have a 4:00pm or later cancelation policy on the day of arrival, last room availability and other amenities. Federal Travelers are to give Fedroom Properties first consideration when booking a room.

The evolution of Federal Travel has been significant over the last 20 years.  20 years ago electronic travel and on-line booking was an idea reserved for Buck Rogers and the Jetsons.  In addition to automation, the government has moved towards consolidation and elimination of stove-pipe systems.   In the future I see agencies continuing to consolidate and automate travel processing as well as to outsource travel services to a Shared Service Provider.  Federal travel may decrease with the popularity of video conferencing and on-line training but federal travelers will still need to be on-site for a variety of mission essential trips that can relate to anything from the economy, civil rights and defense to disabilities, education, and Veterans Affairs.   Travel is an important part of many agencies mission and in servicing the public.  Needless to say, I’m looking forward to being involved in the next twenty years of Government Travel evolution.

by Diana Bonnell

Disclaimer: The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the Government or my agency.  Use of this equipment is consistent with the agency’s policy governing limited personal use.

Some Global Distribution Systems do not allow for the booking of tickets for certain airlines – although this is often driven by which airlines choose to participate in which Global Distribution Systems. In addition, the various online booking engines integrated within the E-Gov Travel systems do interact differently with the various Global Distribution Systems. My experience is that the numbers of flights that display in one of the E-Gov Travel online booking engines vary depending on the Global Distribution System the online booking engine is accessing. Are agencies going to evaluate this in determining which Global Distribution Systems should be used by their Travel Management Centers? The agencies should, but I doubt very many do.

There is also at least one example of one company owning both a Global Distribution System and one of the online booking engines used by an E-Gov Travel system. As you can imagine, when this company makes enhancements to and fixes errors in its online booking engine, preference is given to their online booking engine’s interaction with their own Global Distribution System. This is another situation that should be examined by agencies in determining which Global Distribution Systems should be used by their Travel Management Centers.

By:

Their main technology, the ARC Document Retrieval System launched in 2001, allows travel agents and carriers to access summaries and details of millions of airline ticket transactions over the Web. Prior to the availability of the ARC Document Retrieval System, agents and carriers had to rely on paper copies of ticket documents, microfiche and back-office systems to research ticket information for all of these transactions.  ARC has centralized and simplified industry reporting in virtually every internal decision-making and workflow function. With the capability to archive and display 39 months of transaction data, made accessible on-line at all times, ARC Document Retrieval System has become the nucleus of travel industry information.   The result is significant tangible and intangible cost reductions.

While most data warehouses are internally focused on sales, customer behavior, and supply chain optimization, ARC’s vision was to provide a travel industry solution to customers and give them the resources of an industry data warehouse.  ARC offers more than 60 revenue-generating reporting products, and launches five new revenue-generating products each year.

Benefits of ARC data reports created for external customers in the travel industry include

• create targeted marketing plans,
• assess incentive programs,
• optimize promotions,
• offers insight for route and network planning,
• sales trends,
• customer behavior,
• demand forecasts,
• statistical profiles,
• point of sale analysis,
• targeted marketing campaigns

ARC introduced its Electronic Credit Card Billing (ECCB) in 1989, and in 1996 ECCB became part of the daily billing process.  It was the first organization in the industry to comply with the payment card industry data security standard, and also complies with the European Union Safe Harbor program.

ARC is the cornerstone of the air travel industry, an integral part to its success and future. It offers the best settlement engine, is the recognized industry data store, and is the premier provider of industry knowledge and insight. Using increasingly sophisticated electronic means for ticket distribution, reporting, and remittance, these points of sale are responsible for air and rail sales of nearly $70 billion a year.

By Crystal Wright

References

• http://www.tdwi.org/research/display.aspx?id=8520
• http://www.arccorp.com/index.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/18tickets.html?ex=1347768000&en=f1d65893d343701d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Government contractors, as well as businesses in general, have long been obligated to check the immigration status of employees. The E-Verify system, however, goes beyond the current requirement that employees provide ID evidence of immigration status. Instead, the system requires the electronic transmission of a Social Security Number and picture identification for comparison with Government data bases.  This could be costly, at least to start, be difficult given a 30-day start-up period, and could require the removal of well trained employees who do not meet the requirements.  On the other hand, this does provide employers with reduced likelihood of future problems involved in employing illegal aliens, who may have quality fake identification documents.

The interesting issue for the travel industry is one of coverage.  That is, which components of the industry will be required to E-Verify their employees.  The final rules increase certain limitations from the earlier proposed rules.  Under the final rules, in order to be required to E-Verify employees, a contract must exceed 120 days in performance and be for $100,000 or more.  However, it is not limited to the contractor, but covers subcontractors as well as subcontractors to subcontractors, and makes the prime contractor responsible for subcontractor compliance.  The regulation defines a subcontractor as “. . . any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor.”  A review of the commentary on the regulation indicates that the 120-day limitation applies to the prime contract, but does not apply to subcontracts (a 30-day rule arguably seem to apply).  This commentary further suggests that the $100,000 limitation is also not pushed down to the subcontractor level.  On the other hand, employees of the prime contractor or a subcontractor who normally perform support work, such as indirect or overhead functions and who do not perform any substantial duties applicable to the contract, are excluded from the E-Verify requirement.

It would appear that the CTOs and TMCs would be subject to E-Verify as the work involved in operating these offices, while tangential to the travel, would involve the direct work of the contract.  These functions would likely exceed 120 days and $100,000. An interesting question is how the GDS would be classified.  Arguably, the GDS could be considered a subcontractor as it provides services to the contractor, but the services could be considered indirect or overhead functions.  It is, therefore, likely that GDS employees would not be subject to E-Verify.

The primary issue that I see involves suppliers.  That is, are airlines, hotels, conference centers, and rental car companies subject to E-Verify.  If this is the case, every hotel employee, including chambermaids, reception staff, and waiters who might serve a Government employee could be covered.  Likewise, flight crews and check-in personnel and even ground crews could be covered. If so, E-Verify’s 30-day requirement to clear these employees would likely place a tremendous burden on airlines and large hotel chains.

Presumably, most conference centers would not be subject to E-Verify as the performance period involved would not exceed 120 days.  Some long term stay hotels would likely meet the 120 day requirement, but, except where a number of Government employees are located in a facility for an extended period, the $100,000 limit would not be met.  An employee will not be on a flight for 120 days and it would be rare for a car rental to exceed 120 days and $100,000.  Assuming that the limitations apply by purchase order, the impact would not be great.  However, it is unclear how these limitations will be calculated.  Car rental companies, airlines, and hotel are normally purchased off of a GSA schedule.  Therefore, if we look at the schedule as a contract, as opposed to each purchase order, the schedules for most hotel chains, rental companies and airlines surely exceed 120 days of service and $100,000.

The regulation commentary is confusing when dealing with the issue of determining what constitutes a contract for purposes of E-Verify.  On the one hand, the commentary, at 134, implies that the E-Verify requirements are applicable to indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  The GSA website FAQs on schedules states, in pertinent part, that:

GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts, also referred to as GSA Schedule and Federal Supply Schedule contracts, are indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are available for use by federal agencies worldwide. GSA awards and administers MAS contracts pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 501, Services for Executive Agencies.

It would appear, therefore, that schedule agreements with airlines, hotels, and car rental agencies are contracts for E-Verify purposes and, since purchases, under the schedules, in most cases exceed $100,000, and the schedule contracts all exceed 120 days, contracting with GSA to provide schedule services would, in most cases, require use of E-Verify.  In addition as it would be unclear where Federal employees would stay and what services they would use, most front-room employees would be subject to E-Verification.

However, the commentary addresses the issue of application to hotel employees at page 123 of the commentary.  The question addressed points out that compliance by hotels is likely to be a major problem as it is impossible for hotels to know which employees will react with which guests and Government employees are not segregated within hotels.  This was particularly problematic under the draft regulations which had a 30-day limit and which required E-Verify be used for all employees providing services to Government employees, but did not permit its use with other employees.  In responding to this question the regulation commentary states as follows:

First, the revision to the proposed rule that will make the clause inapplicable to contracts that will have a period of less than 120 days may eliminate almost all hotel contracts from being subject to the rule.  Second, the decision to allow contractors the option of using E-Verify for all existing employees, rather than just those assigned to the contract, will likely resolve any remaining issue.

The first part of this response indicates that almost all hotels will not meet the 120 day limitation, this suggests that each purchase order is viewed as a separate contract as it is difficult to see how they could say this if a GSA schedule contract was intended to be the “contract” for purposes of E-Verify.

In short, the regulation does not define what is a contract and the commentary is contradictory as to whether GSA schedule agreements constitute contracts for E-Verify.  It will be interesting to see whether GSA will be sending modification notices to those on the schedules requiring the signing of E-Verify MOUs.

by Scott Goldsmith

Due to the many tickets that are written off due to lack of re-use or not recalled by the TMC, our organization needed to come up with a sure fire way to use up the hundreds of tickets before they expire.   We have incorporated these unused non-refundable tickets directly into the travelers profile to ensure these “credits” will be used toward the next trip.  We have done this by using a scraping method of the GDS by looking for our ARC numbers and then compiling a report.  The report is then uploaded into the travelers’ profile each week for all users who have access to their profile to see.

In the past, these tickets weren’t as accessible and the process to create a report was cumbersome and slow.  This inhibited travelers or arrangers from accessing a reliable database of unused tickets.  Often, the TMC didn’t have accurate information, especially on partially used tickets.

Since the majority of our tickets are issued through our on-line booking tool, we now anticipate that the current bank of over $500K will deplete because of the obvious visibility into these tickets.  The new system actually prompts the traveler or arranger to use up the tickets for that traveler, if at all possible.

It is our goal to deplete the file by 50% by the end of the fiscal year.   Stay tuned…..

by Stefanie Tretola