Airline revenue falls, BSP revenue falls – BSP being, amongst others, the monthly income payment that airlines received from travel agents – panic sets in. So, what are we talking about? The figures do look big – BSP churns some 240 billion dollars worth a year; a fair chunk of that being from the 58,000 travel agents world wide. IATA-BSP lost, last year 85 billion in bad debts – horrors! Well, not really when you bear in mind that this represents some 0.35% of turnover (an expression used loosely). Now, airline revenue comes mainly from BSP – some 80% to be exact – which means that travel agents – online AND offline – still represent the main source of airline income, despite the increasingly despotic attempts by airlines to drive traffic away from the various agency networks.

Of this BSP income for the airlines (and about 95% of the world’s airlines are in IATA BSP – and certainly nearly all of the “legacy” carriers) 80% of the UK airline income is generated by just 140 of 1,300-ish UK IATA agents – and half of it by just 30 agents (thank you, Travel Weekly).

The knee jerk reaction of airlines is to demand that BSP (and so, agents) start paying every two weeks rather than monthly, as they do now. In other words, the airlines get less money but on a more regular basis. Failing that, in order to “stop the bad debts” (which is running at, you will recall, 0.35% of turnover) IATA BSP wish to impose bonding on everyone who looks even slightly less than gold plated. This, at a time when bonds and loans are, of course, very easy to come by.

From this, we can deduce that airlines have clearly failed the marshmallow test. Take now! And hang the consequences! Well, What are the consequences? Agents, especially, will remember British Airways arrogantly proclaiming that they “Did not owe agents a living” whilst taking away the commission paid on airline tickets. Fine, said agents, who went away and in the words used in a PhoCus Wright study promptly “….. responded strategically, tactically and most of all aggresively to adapt, survive and succeed” in other words, showed the airlines two fingers and got on with the job of selling travel.

The worm turns, agents (and remember I mean online as much as any other; even Expedia and Travelocity are agents) do not owe airlines a living, either. There is a mutual dependency – the likes of Travelocity are very good at what they do, retailing (or shall we say, distributing content) whereas airlines are supposed to be good at what they do, which is shipping people from A to B. Travelocity et alia make a profit; airlines don’t – which says an awful lot about who actually owes whom, what. Airlines (and to a greater or lesser extent IATA) still ponitificate Canute-like about what they are going to do. Actually at the moment, they can. Just. Where they are taking their eye of the ball, if they ever had it on the ball, is by not watching those BSP statistics. That 50% of their income is dependent upon 30 agents – such as AMEX -at present.

Any precipative action, such as going to two week payments may well have exceedingly uncomfortable side affects, say 80% of their income coming subsequently from 30 (or less) agents. Why is this? Simple – “Divide and Rule”. Airlines could only pontificate and rule the roost because they had a wide and diverse distribution network through many channels, they did not need to really listen to any one product distributor simply because there wasn’t one. Yet, since the demise of commission, there is – or rather there are 30 of them and as they impose more onerous restrictions that number will fall, or rather that 30 will control and ever greater share of the income pie – and that is when you really start to sweat.

You do not need to be an expert to see this all too clearly. Where do you buy your daily bread? Yes, TESCO, Sainsbury or ASDA . Where did you buy your last PC? Yes, PC World or DELL. Your last thingy for fixing that irritating squeak? Yes, B&Q, WICKS (or Halfords, depending). Take the old IBM story where arrogance spawned Microsoft. Or just take a look what has happended to the local pub, even. All these are examples of what happens when people take a short term view by people with a short term interest. Airlines are lining themselves up, very nicely, thank you, for exactly the same treatment. They will soon be told what they can sell, where they can sell it and for how much. They behave or wallop! All that valuable, say, BA, trans-atlantic traffic goes to AA or UA or VS.

Of course, airlines say that they “talk” to the agents (Talk rather than “communicate with” – of course) but to whom are they are talking? Yes, you are right, to that 30. And that 30 have their own agenda, which is, of course, to control 80% or 90% of that BSP revenue, not 50%. I do not know what the critical mass is, but it cannot be far off. So, AMEX becomes the air travel business’s answer to B&Q. If you are an airline, you do what AMEX says, or you get nothing. Up to you, of course. Yes, they can distribute themselves and will have to. What we have here, however, is a service providor, a maufacturer, trying to retail and as I say, retailers are a lot better at retailing than manufacturers. Just look down the Times Rich List. Even Old Beardie once answered the question “How do you become a millionaire?” with “Start with 10 million and open an airline”.

So, airlines need to think things through (they won’t) and so does IATA (it can’t – think, that is). IATA is a body which believes that Stalin’s way of doing things was rather soft. And Airlines, like Sir Anthony Eden, still think they rule an empire. Things have changed dramatically over the last ten years or so and will indeed continue to do so. It is just intereting to note that the very architects of that change process, those that pulled down the orginal edifice with first checking to see what still needed support, now find themselves in turbulent air whereas those they lectured about that change, the agents, have quietly and efficently got on with the job. Airlines and IATA can talk the talk, they just cannot walk the walk.