Oregon has had a managed travel program for over 15 years.   The model was patterned after the GSA and has worked well.  One thing that Oregon does is it keeps the number of travel agencies who are authorized to provide contracted air fares, to one.    The State of Oregon partners with the Oregon University System (OUS) to consolidate travel volume and leverage spend.  We allow the OUS to contract with a limited number of additional travel agencies who meet their unique needs.

This practice has been tremendous in the state achieving at least $7 million in annual savings than paying published fares.   Airlines like to see controls in place.  Those controls include a single form of payment, authorization procedures in place, and a limited number of travel agencies selling the tickets.    The more controls, the better the savings.

Another tremendous advantage in having just one TMC, all of the travel spend is contained at the one source.  It certainly makes it easier to have a single report showing all of the travel spend, vs. trying to compile multiple reports by hand.

I am not saying this may be the best way, by having multiple agencies, there could be an advantage to use an agency that better suits a travelers need, or one who is closer in location.  But in today’s environment, most travel agencies can offer services to meet everyone’s needs and since tickets are issued electronically, whether next door or across the state, the method of delivery remains the same.

by Tim Hay

I’ve personally had to explain to the traveler that policy states they should use the city pair fare offered by the TMC and not reserve their flight through Orbitz, which leads into a conversation on how they’re saving the Government money.  Most travelers don’t realize that that one flight may indeed be more expensive than what they saw online, however the vast majority of airfares are quite discounted, and in the end will save money.  They also forget about the benefits such as tickets being fully refundable, and that there are no penalties or fees for rebooking, re-ticketing or cancellation.  Travelers need to become more educated of the benefits of using city pair fares and that reserving flights outside of the TMC is against policy.

By: Kelvin Dawson

For the convenience of travelers, FedRooms offers a website which offers helpful information.  There’s a convenient search page for travelers to easily find a FedRooms hotel.  This site also offers an overview of the FedRooms program, a traveler newsletter, a screen where travelers may sign-up to receive special offers and updates, and an opportunity for travelers to provide feedback.

Federal Government employees (military and civilian) can always use the FedRooms rate when on official travel but can also use the reduced rates for leisure travel at select FedRooms properties.

The FedRooms program offers more than 4,100 hotels in more than 1,400 cities around the world which is an increase from 636 hotels in 2004.  They also offer a help desk to answer program-related questions.

It is important for the government traveler to realize that the FedRooms rate and ‘Government’ rate are not the same.  The ‘Government’ rates may have hidden fees and cancellation policies that add up to a larger bill at checkout and 15 percent of ‘Government’ rates are over per diem.  The FedRooms rate can be accessed through other avenues, such as the E Gov Travel system we currently use in our office.

by Cindy Moore

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.

There are many benefits of the Government Rental Car Program.  One of the most significant benefits to government personnel on official business is the collision damage waiver (CDW) insurance.  This insurance is included at no extra charge.  Besides attractive rates, other benefits include unlimited mileage, age restriction reduced from 25 to 18, and much more.

The government issued charge cards are the preferred method of payment to the rental car company, however, companies will also accept cash, personal checks, or credit cards.  And, where prior arrangements are made, rental car charges may be made to a government issued centrally-billed account.

Rental car companies must maintain insurance coverage which protects the government and its employees from liability for personal injury, death, and property damage.  A car rented by a traveler by means other than the government travel systems risks not receiving the benefits of the Government Car Rental Agreement.

If an accident should occur while using a rental vehicle, the traveler must contact the rental company immediately upon damage or loss of the vehicle.

In conclusion, the Government Car Rental Program is an effective means for government travelers to fulfill mission requirements and save the government money, as well as contribute to the car rental industry.

By:  Crystal Horner

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

Specifically for temporary duty (TDY) travel expenses, the Order recognizes the importance of travel to agency mission and functions, but at the same time asks agencies to devise strategic alternatives to travel including teleconferencing and video-conferencing.

The Treasury Department intends to issue guidance in the near future on how this can be accomplished, but Treasury Bureaus always have the option to look at ways to save travel budgets. The Travel Services Division (TSD) has identified areas of Bureau travel policy and processes that could be changed to assist with compliance to the Order and to reduce overall per trip expenses. Much of the projected amount of travel budget reductions in the Order can be achieved from the suggestions outlined below, without having to reduce the number of trips by any significant amount.

I feel with the recent events that have highlighted Federal Government travel spending since writing last year’s paper, that a follow-up would be beneficial.

There is a historical perspective that reveals unnecessary travel costs that are inherent in Government travel.  First, there is no training mandate. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) tasks travel approving officials with authorizing and approving travel in a prudent manner and in accordance with established Federal and Agency/Bureau policies. While this responsibility is evident in the FTR, travel approvers authorize and approve expenses in many cases without this understanding and as a result, far too many travel documents contain errors that result in the Bureau paying more than is needed for official trips.

Secondly, the E-Gov travel service (eTS) as required by the FTR is limited by design. The eTS is an automated system of travel authorizations and vouchers.  Our Bureau’s eTS system is GovTrip which has many of the critical policy audits in place that require justifications to the approver. However, no system can ensure all policy requirements are met without reliance on travel approvers who have knowledge of the policy and financial implications of this function.

Third, our Bureau travel policy while very thorough can be enhanced to gain further controls and cost savings. The FTR requires an Agency or Bureau to have policies in place for certain items as described in the FTR.  While the existing BPD travel policy fulfills these requirements, there are still some things the Bureau can do to increase savings in the overall travel budget by making policies clearer and more in line with the FTR and best practices. [2]

Fourth, there are reimbursement errors that are found through our post payment travel audit process. TSD is required by OMB guidelines to conduct post payment audits of a representative sample of paid travel voucher, to include a 100% audit of all travel documents that exceed $2,500. Overpayments discovered during this process are collected back from the traveler.  TSD finds numerous instances of overpayments that need to be collected from travelers primarily because the approving official did not question the expense when the document was approved by them for payment.

To illustrate how understanding the FTR and Bureau policy can affect travel expenses, a travel approving official can authorize a TDY trip following FTR guidelines and still have the trip more expensive than it otherwise would have been if the approver had knowledge of all the rules. TSD recently presented a sample trip in a training class showing this. A hypothetical trip from Columbus to Las Vegas following the FTR cost $1,756 compared to the same trip with interpretation of the FTR applied with a cost of $763.  While this example is extreme and would not have every principle applied in every case, it does show the control approving officials have in authorizing travel expenses.

There are quite a few things TSD can do to achieve travel cost savings.  The number one thing we plan to recommend to our Executive Board is that because there is no provision for mandatory training for travel approvers to fully understand how they must discharge their responsibilities in adhering to travel regulations and policies, BPD should either strongly encourage or mandate training for all travel approvers in order to become more fiscally responsible as stated in the Executive Order. A training requirement currently exists for Government Travel charge card holders to have initial and annual refresher training on use of the card.  TDS feels this training requirement should also be in place for travel approvers. TSD can provide online or classroom training through GSA or our office.

The rationale for this mandatory training requirement is because of the perception that approving travel for an official trip seems to many approvers  like an easy task, but in reality, there must be a great deal of thought given to the process. Travel approving officials have a two-part job.  Approvers not only authorize what can be spent in the travel authorization, they must also verify what was actually spent on the travel voucher. In financial terms, they are obligating funds in their travel budget and approving them for disbursement as payment to the traveler and/or associated vendors. Approvers should be aware of the importance of performing a thorough review of all travel documents, justifications, and receipts before electronically approving them in the E-Travel system.

Approvers may only authorize travel expenses that are necessary to accomplish the Government’s mission. In this current climate of reduced travel budgets, this function is even more important. Approvers must evaluate the need for the travel and whether or not alternatives such as teleconferencing, webcasts, or other means could be used. Approvers must ensure travelers exercise the same care as a prudent person would exercise if traveling at his/her own expense. In addition, travel approvers must also take into account policy considerations as outlined in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) as well as BPD policy. So what in particular do travel approvers look for?

In the travel authorization, approvers must determine:

• If a City Pair contract airline flight is selected, or if a valid FTR justification is provided;
• The mode of travel is selected and advantageous to the Government, or the traveler’s reimbursement is limited to the constructive cost of travel;
• Travel is routed by the most cost effective means;
• If the traveler is taking leave or planning personal travel in conjunction with official travel. Traveler must provide a cost comparison if adding personal to official travel;
• A Government vehicle is used if available, before a rental car;
• Courtesy transportation is used when available;
• Public transportation is used before a taxi cab;
• Per diem location selected is where the official business is conducted;
• Lodging selected is FedRooms and FEMA approved, or justification provided;
• The E-Travel system was used for all transportation and lodging reservations;
• The correct accounting is selected.

In the travel voucher, approvers verify:

• Receipts are attached electronically to the voucher and are valid and legible;
• Receipts match the claimed expenses;
• The daily lodging rate matches the receipt;
• Actual expense, if authorized does not exceed 300% of per diem.
• Lodging taxes for domestic travel claimed on the non-mileage expense section;
• If meals were provided or leave taken, per diem entitlements are adjusted;
• TMC fee is not claimed automatically and in ‘Other Transportation’;
• Miscellaneous expenses are valid and documented;
• Traveler used the proper form of payment for expenses;
• Any travel advances are properly deducted in the voucher amount;
• The travel claim is properly prepared in accordance with the FTR and BPD travel policy;
• Unused tickets are returned to the TMC for a credit;
• The accuracy of claimed amounts compared to the required receipts and justifications;
• All business calls and internet charges were necessary to perform official business;
• All personal calls were made to average $10 per day.  Travelers may not just claim this daily amount;
• Approvers should question or disapprove any claimed expenses which were either not authorized or are contrary to policy.

For all the above complexities involved in approving travel authorizations and vouchers, mandatory or highly encouraged approving official training will go a long way toward the goal of reducing unnecessary travel costs. [3]

TSD also plans to ensure our Bureau travel policy is aligned with current and future regulations and adopts best practices in order to achieve cost savings. While we will have many recommendations, some of the highlights are shown below.

One recommendation is to emphasize lodging alternatives to the approvers. The FTR requires first consideration of the FedRooms lodging program.  FedRooms properties guarantee rates to be at or below the per diem rate.  In the current economic climate, the majority of FedRooms properties offer rates that average $23 per night lower than the established per diem rate.[4] Far too many travelers call specific hotels based on personal preference or use of frequent stay points resulting in the Government paying more for lodging in many cases. TSD recommends instructing travel approvers to ensure hotel reservations are made in GovTrip and with FedRooms properties. Using FedRooms whenever possible can save the Bureau thousands of travel budget dollars annually.

Another recommendation to approvers is to consider how the trip is routed.  Approvers are required by the FTR to route travel by the most cost effective and usually traveled route. BPD needs a policy stating approvers must look at alternate airports in addition to Port Columbus when the mode of transportation selected is common carrier. The fact that Parkersburg has no viable air service and traveler must depart from Columbus Ohio for trips involving common carrier, surrounding airports should also be considered from a cost standpoint.  Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV, Clarksburg, WV and Akron/Canton airports among others should be looked at by travelers and approvers. These airports also have contract City Pair fares, and/or commercial fares far cheaper than Port Columbus. Approvers can achieve substantial savings when considering alternate airports.

Evaluating the need for transportation at the TDY site is another important recommendation.  BPD policy should clearly state the FTR provisions of the hierarchy of authorizing transportation at the temporary duty site. Too often, approvers authorize a taxi cab at the TDY location when courtesy or public transportation is available for free or low cost. We have seen instances where rental cars are approved in areas with viable courtesy and public transportation. Not only is parking needed for the rental car, we have seen the cases where the car was provided simply to get from the airport to the hotel where the conference was held, so the car was not used during the trip. Other cases involved both a rental car and taxi cab reimbursement at the TDY location. Clear BPD guidance will save transportation expenses while on TDY.

Airport parking is another area of emphasis for travel approvers.  Travelers departing Parkersburg, WV on flights normally use Port Columbus International Airport in Columbus, Ohio due to the high cost and connection problems departing from Parkersburg. Port Columbus offers three long term parking lots ranging from $4 per day to $9 per day, with the difference in cost stemming from the proximity to the terminal. BPD should create a policy to require travelers to use the lower cost green lot or limit reimbursement to the cost of the green lot. While per trip savings are small, the overall cost savings for this expense an annual basis for the Bureau is high.

TSD believes adopting these and other recommendations can achieve substantial savings in the Bureau’s travel budget with a minimum of cost and impact. This would then allow us to be in compliance with the President’s Executive Order to Promote Efficient Spending as well as becoming more efficient stewards of the public’s money.

By Daniel Carozza 

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

The first two sections seem to be a 30,000 foot view and what the GSA and Federal Government have done. The history of what occurred in the past and the accomplishments made along the way were great.   I hope the course will get a little deeper into how the GSA and Federal government accomplished this.   Maybe get into what information should be asked for in Request for Proposals to travel vendors, and what to evaluate on.

As a travel manager for the State of Oregon, I truly understand the need for a managed travel program.  It is very rewarding when you can demonstrate a yearly savings in millions of dollars by having all of the elements in place.  The states who have managed travel programs have become more united in recent years to help each other out and also to educate those states who are trying to develop a managed travel program.  It is hoped by the states that one day we can partner more with the federal government with some of their programs in order to develop a united front in the government travel market.

by Tim Hay

In the current economic climate with all the focus on cost savings and reduced budgets, saving travel dollars is taking center stage. Agencies are faced with reduced funding for travel and using video conferencing wherever feasible. The Government is tracking the ‘carbon footprint’ of their trips and setting targets for reductions.  This stemmed from a Presidential Executive Order last year and has been highly visible since reporting began. Also centralizing reporting for adherence to Federal and agency travel policies is appearing with the new GSA TravelTrax system.  Just recently, GSA issued a Federal Travel Regulation Bulletin (10-06) providing agency guidance for sustainable travel.

The public and Congress are also interested in the amounts spent on Federal travel with many independent investigations and audits being done.  Further, the press is now involved with a journalist conducting numerous Freedom of Information (FOIA) request for travel data from almost every Governemnt and military organization. The information is being consolidated for public consumption at a webstie called ‘Junket Sleuth’. 

Yet with all the focus on these initiatives, there is still something very obvious that the Government can do in order to reduce travel costs – train travelers and approvers to scrutinize trip  costs.

Over the years, it has been our experience that like anything in life, there are some people that approve travel or incur expenses that take this responsibility seriously.  Likewise, there are also those that have no idea what their responsibility is when it comes to traveling or approving travel documents. To that end, travelers and approvers can do many things to reduce travel costs. 

The Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) mandates that travelers incur, and approvers authorize expenses as would a “prudent” person.  In other words, spend the Government’s money like you were spending your own money.  Not only will doing this save travel budget dollars, it also saves taxpayer dollars as well.  Unfortunately, there is not yet a mandate in the FTR for traveler and travel approver training.

When it comes to air travel, approvers should select the departure and arrival airports not only for cost considerations, but also for mission requirements.  This year, the searchable General Services Administration (GSA) City Pair Fare website includes prices from alternate departure and arrival airports.  In some markets, the savings can be considerable.  One example includes fares ranging from $85.00 each way to $600.00 each way. Since many Government offices are located in cities with multiple airports, and go to destinations with multiple airports, careful consideration to airport selection can save a great deal in an office’s travel budget.

There are two Government City Pair Fares in GovTrip to choose from.  Negotiated contract airfares are coded green in GovTrip with the YCA fare basis code.  Discounted contract airfares are coded yellow in GovTrip with the –CA (dash CA) fare basis code.  While the discounted fares are limited in number, they can and should be used if available as they cost less than the regular YCA fares.  The earlier you book, the more likely you will see the discounted contract –CA fares.

In addition, City Pair contact fares are fully refundable if not used and often are cheaper than discounted, non-refundable commercial airfares.  The City Pair contract fare should be selected, especially when travelers or approvers think their travel plans are subject to change. 

A recent development with airlines has been baggage fees. With a few exceptions, gone are the days where carriers allow baggage at no charge.  Commercial baggage fees also apply to the City Pair program.  Even so, travelers and approvers should use common sense while traveling with baggage.  For a trip lasting two or three days, one bag fee under the weight limit is normally sufficient.  Travelers may also opt to bring a carry-on bag and eliminate baggage fees.  For longer trips, two bags may be the norm, depending on whether or not the traveler requests reimbursement for laundry and dry cleaning. Travelers should also consider joining the airline frequent flier programs since with a certain level of points, there are no bag fees. 

In the current economic environment, there seems to be an overabundance of unsold hotel rooms.  Many hotels that participate in the official Government lodging program, FedRooms have reduced their FedRooms rates to much lower than the Government per diem rate, or even their own “best available rate”.  These lower rates still include amenities such as breakfast, Wi-Fi, shuttle service, upgrades, or other offers. 

Even though travelers should give first consideration to FedRooms properties, GovTrip requires a justification for not using a FedRooms property.

Travelers should remember that the ‘government rate’ is not the same as the FedRooms rate. Hotels set their own ‘government rates’ and offer them to Federal, state, and local governments, and are normally set at the Federal per diem rate, or higher.  The FedRooms rate is guaranteed to be at or below the per diem rate.  Offices can save a considerable portion of their lodging travel budget by selecting FedRooms properties. In addition, FedRooms satisfies the requirement for travelers to stay in fire-safe facilities.  FedRooms also has some negotiated benefits such as cancellations up to 4 p.m. the day of arrival with no penalty, no reservation deposits needed, and travelers can still earn frequent stay points while using FedRooms properties.  There are more FedRooms properties than ever before with a focus on locations that are closer to Federal business needs.

Travelers and approvers should give first consideration to using a Government automobile (GOV), if available, prior to using a rental car.  If driving to a regional airport, a one-way car rental may be less costly than renting a car for a week or more and paying for parking and the rental cost during the time the traveler is away.  Most car vendors offer one-way and round-trip rates and free shuttle service to and from the airport. 

Rental cars while at the temporary duty location must be authorized in advance.  Travelers may not just decide they want a rental car at the TDY location. In either situation, rental cars should be rented from a vendor that participates in the U.S. Government’s Car Rental Agreement managed by the Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO).

Travel approvers should only authorize Global Positioning Service (GPS) charges when required for agency mission.  GPS charges for personal preference may not be reimbursable.

Airport parking is another consideration for travelers and approvers. Most airports offer a choice of parking lots with varying daily rates.  Travelers should choose, and approvers authorize the least expensive parking option.  Recently, there has been a growth in off-airport parking locations that offer a lower daily parking rate than their on-airport counterparts, but also offer free shuttle transportation to the airport terminal. 

Taxi cabs are expensive.  Often there is courtesy hotel transportation available at no cost, or airport shuttle type services for a reduced cost.  Public transportation can also be an option. 

There are extra costs associated to combining personal travel with official travel.  While not normally a problem is the amount of leave requested is reasonable, approvers still need to look at the appearance to outsiders when approving this type of travel.  Naturally, any costs higher than the official travel costs are the responsibility of the traveler. Because the Government only pays up to the cost of official travel, a cost comparison must be done when creating a travel authorization if a traveler intends to deviate from the official itinerary.  Another cost comparison should be done for the travel voucher as well.  Even if a travel approver authorizes something against the FTR, the expense is not reimbursed, or is collected from the traveler if paid and audited.

The FTR mandates travelers to use the E-Gov travel system adopted by their agency.  An E-Gov system is defined as the automated travel authorization, voucher and booking software, but can also be defined as a travel management center (TMC), or travel agent.  These methods allow many, but not all of the cost savings mentioned above to be implemented, or at the very least justified in the case of exceptions.  However, travelers and approvers still need to be cognizant of the reasonableness of amounts authorized and claimed.

Our travel policy office recently looked at a hypothetical trip to Las Vegas with an approver who really does not look at the authorization and the trip ends up costing $1,756.00. This was contrasted by an approver looking at the same trip for the same dates, which ends up costing $ 763.00. The difference was comprised of: 

• Authorizing POV mileage expenses to the airport versus taking a GOV;
• Approving lodging the night before the trip at the regional airport (outside the local area)    instead of seeing if the traveler could take a flight later in the day;
• Approving airport parking at a more expensive lot;
• Using the YCA fare when a –CA fare was available;
• Approving two checked bags for a five day trip; approving rental car at the TDY location when a shuttle or taxi would have been less;
• Approved the higher government lodging rate over the lower FedRooms rate;
• Approving taxi and rental car at the TDY location;
• Approving an extra night’s lodging at the TDY location when the conference ended by      mid-day.

Certainly, most travel authorizations and vouchers will never be at either extreme, but the idea is to show how much of a difference there can be.  Most documents will be in the mid-range of these amounts.

As can be seen, there are many choices that can and should be made when incurring official travel expenses.  By following this guidance and using these Government-mandated programs, you can actually have a big impact on your office’s travel budget while enjoying all the benefits and rewards of these programs, while at the same time, be in compliance with emerging regulations and guidance.

By: Dan Carozza

In 1980 the General Services Administration (GSA) developed the City Pair Program (CPP) to provide discounted air passenger transportation services to Federal government travelers. In the beginning, this service only covered 11 markets, but has grown to over 5,000 city pairs. The average savings is 63%-77% below commercial full fares. A critical aspect of travel planning is flexibility and the CPP has many features that allow Government travelers all the flexibility possible.

Features of the Service include:

• Non-stop service was awarded on 95% of the markets where non-stop service was offered.
• Fares are priced on one-way routes, permitting agency travelers to plan multiple destinations.
• Fares are unrestricted, meaning:
• No advance purchase required
• Tickets are fully refundable
• No charge for cancellations or changes
• Last seat availability
• No blackout periods
• No minimum or maximum length of stay required

The Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) require nearly all Federal government travelers to use the CPP which is part of the reason GSA is able to obtain such phenomenal pricing. There are a few exceptions for not using the CPP; however, travelers that use these exceptions would have to abide by the many restrictions that typically go along with standard commercial fares. Some of these restrictions could include non-refundability and change or cancellation fees, which could increase the total trip cost by several hundred dollars.

Some airlines that do not win the contract offer Federal travelers a government fare—sometimes referred to as a “me too” or “matching” fare. These fares are usually comparable to the contract fare in price; however, they may or may not be fully refundable and may come with ticketing restrictions.

Our E Travel System has the mandatory use of the CPP built in so that travelers can easily identify which fares are contract carriers and which ones are not. Built in audits force travelers who do not chose the contract carrier to provide FTR justifications before completing their travel authorization. These built in controls encourage the use of the CPP and keep our travelers in compliance with Federal travel regulations. Unfortunately, travelers who book their reservations by calling the agency designated TMC directly run into issues with identifying a CPP and a non-contract government fare. The issue usually involves the terminology used by the TMC agent and the travelers understanding of the difference between a contract and non-contract government fare. Booking reservations directly with the TMC bypasses the built in audit controls thus allowing the traveler a false sense of security in believing that they have booked their reservations in compliance with the FTR. On a positive note, once the TMC transmits the traditional reservations back into the E Travel System, the system picks up the built in audits and forces the next person in the routing to justify use of a non-contract fare. To alleviate confusion between a CPP and non-contract government fare, travelers should always ask for a contract fare instead of a government fare when booking directly with the TMC.

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.

Government travelers, following the requirements set forth in the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR), must use a contract fare when available unless the traveler has a valid justification.  Some of the justifications are:

1. There are no seats available on a contract carrier.
2. Flight times do not enable the traveler to meet mission requirements.
3. A non-contract carrier offers a lower fare available to the general public and using it reduces the cost to the government.

Not only as a government employee but also a taxpayer, it is good to know the CPP benefits the government by saving money on travel.  Other benefits of using the program include:

1. Fully refundable tickets.
2. Advance purchase not required.
3. No blackout dates.
4. No charge for cancellations or changes to a reservation.
5. Fares are priced on one-way routes, permitting travelers to plan multiple destinations.
6. Once negotiated, the fares are locked in for one year which makes for a more manageable travel budget.
7. Last seat availability.

The CPP fares must be purchased with a government issued charge card or in certain instances, the Government Transportation Request (GTR).

By: Sue Burton

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

Technology is not a bad thing. Advancements in vehicles and computer systems have opened the travel arena to heights never imagined in the past. And as technology continues to advance, the travel industry will also advance with it.

Government travel began as a small portion of the government budget but has grown to play a vital role in agencies achieving their mission. It is only to be expected that as technology changes, that rules and regulations need to change as well. Rules that were established in the mid 20th century do not meet the needs of today’s technology. Moving from a manual reservation system to the computerized Global Distribution Systems (GDS) has saved billions of dollars throughout history.

It will be an exciting adventure to see how far technology can continue to advance the world of travel. To what limits and boundaries will we go? Will we need computers as we have today or will artificial intelligence play a part? Will people be in flying cars and not planes? Only history will tell.

By: Linda Ruppel

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