The International Airline Passengers Association (IAPA) and Business Travel Coalition (BTC) responded with grave concern, and to set the record straight, regarding legislation enacted by Parliament on 4 September 2008 to amend the computer reservation system (CRS) Code of Conduct. A number of politicians have claimed, without basis, to represent the interests of 380 million European consumers in this issue.

In the vote that occurred on 4 September, consumer groups had demanded clarification of the definition of Parent Carrier because after the TRAN committee overwhelming approved a set of amendments on 29 May 2008 providing a clear definition of parent carrier, an amendment introduced by Council, and agreed by Rapporteur Kirkhope, inserted a dangerously ambiguous “decisive influence” test. A large number of MEPs, heeding the advice of consumer and industry groups, unfortunately lost a razor-thin vote (305 to 291) demanding deletion of the problematic “decisive influence” text from this Kirkhope-sponsored proposal. IAPA and BTC wish to thank the 291 MEPs who listened to consumers’ voices and voted to have the “decisive influence” text stricken from the legislation.

To set the record straight, consumers remain seriously concerned about the huge loophole this “decisive influence” text creates and object that this amendment is now being transmitted to the Commission without the consumer protections that were sought. Now that the ball is back in the Commission’s court, consumers demand that it deliver ironclad guarantees against anti-competitive conduct by the three airline owners that maintain membership on a major CRS company board of directors.

According to Business Travel Europe, after last week’s vote, “A spokesman for Mr Kirkhope told BTE that the new definition should be tight enough to include Air France, Lufthansa and Iberia as parent carriers. The three airlines have together a 46.4% holding in Amadeus.” This hopeful statement comes without guarantees of any sort, and as such, yields little real value to consumers.

Consumers now look to the Commission to implement a binding “interpretation,” as it promised during last week’s plenary that protects consumers’ interests by assuring that the three CRS-owning airlines are bound by Parent Carrier obligations. Indeed, Commissioner Tajani just yesterday in response to questions from TRAN committee members confirmed that the Commission will issue guidelines on the “decisive influence” provision of the Parent Carrier definition. That this issue was raised again yesterday amidst such a packed TRAN agenda, underlines the concern that remains in Parliament.

We further call on Mr Kirkhope to (1) respect the 291 MEPs who sought Parent Carrier definition clarification by verifying his intention that Air France, Lufthansa and Iberia currently are to be considered Parent Carriers under the legislation he sponsored and (2) to hold the Commission accountable for affirming such status in its upcoming Interpretation.

If that promised interpretation from the Commission does not unequivocally state that the current ownership shares and board representation that Air France, Lufthansa and Iberia enjoy with respect to the Amadeus CRS cause these three airlines to be Parent Carriers, then the Code will, as consumers feared, have been rendered meaningless, and the Parliamentary sponsors of this legislation will be shown to have fallen into the trap consumers warned them existed.