COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 09.07.1997 
COM(97) 246 final 
97/0148 (SYN) 
REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
NO.2299/89 ON A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR 
COMPUTERISED RESERVATION SYSTEMS (CRSs) 
PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
AMENDING COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) NO.2299/89 ON A 
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COMPUTERISED RESERVATION SYSTEMS (CRSs) 
(presented by the Commission) 

REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
NO.2299/89 ON A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR 
COMPUTERISED RESERVATION SYSTEMS (CRSs) 
Contents 
I. Introduction 
II. Application of the code of conduct 
III. Need for an amendment of the code of conduct 
I. Introduction 
CRSs are an important means of distributing air transport services, and therefore can play a key 
role in increasing competition between air carriers. They provide customers with immediate 
access to a wide range of information on carriers' schedules and fares and offer the possibility to 
make instantaneous confirmed bookings. However, CRSs can be used to prevent or inhibit 
competition. Firstly, through discriminatory behaviour in preventing or limiting access to the 
CRS facilities and secondly, through architectural bias, whereby the CRS is designed to provide 
more accurate and reliable information on the flights of the carriers owning the CRS than for 
their competitors. In addition, in the EU, the CRS market is highly concentrated to the extent 
that in most Member States a single CRS has a market share exceeding 80 %. Codes of conduct 
for CRSs have been developed in many regions of the world to regulate the operation of this 
particularly sensitive sector. 
The first EU code of conduct for CRSs ("code") was adopted by the Council on 24 July 1989, 
and addressed the main problem areas affecting the CRS market that had been identified at that 
time. The code was subsequently amended by Regulation 3089/93 which was adopted by the 
Council on 29 October 1993. The amendments were necessary to clarify existing provisions and 
to reflect developments in the industry that had occurred since the original regulation was 
adopted. A more detailed description of the amendments adopted in 1993 and of their 
implementation is given in the next section. 
This present document has been prepared pursuant to Article 23 of the amended code which 
states that "The Council shall decide on the revision of this Regulation by 31 December 1997 on 
the basis of a Commission proposal to be submitted by 31 March 1997, accompanied by a 
report on the application of this Regulation". The report on the application of the amended code 
is set out in Section II of this document. In addition, in the light of the experience gained since 
the adoption of the amended code in 1993, and in order that the code will be able to respond to 
developments in the sector in the coming years, proposals to make additional amendments to the 
code are set out in Sections III and IV. 
The need for the Code to reflect the extensive discussions that have taken place between the 
Commission and the CRS industry, air carriers and subscribers, concerning the basis on which 
CRSs charge for their services together with the rapid developments taking place in distribution 
methods e.g. electronic ticketing and the Internet, have resulted in the Commission bringing 
forward the proposal for an amendment to the code. 
3 
IL Application of the code of conduct 
The amendments made to the code in 1993 were necessary to respond to a range of specific 
problems that had been encountered since die adoption of the original code in 1989. The 
principal amendments included, firstly, the need to ensure that CRSs make equal functionality 
available to all participating carriers, and, in particular, by those CRSs which share common 
systems with their parent carriers. In this respect, the code requires that a system vendor's 
distribution facilities are clearly separated from the internal reservation system of its parent 
carriers. The effectiveness of the arrangements put in place to achieve the separation of the two 
functions is subject to verification by independent external audit. Associated with the technical 
requirements for the separation of the distribution facilities of a system vendor from the internal 
systems of its parent carriers, was a requirement for a system vendor to be established as a 
separate entity from its parent carrier for legal purposes. 
Secondly, the code was extended to include non-scheduled services following the removal of the 
distinction between scheduled and non-scheduled services as a result of the third liberalisation 
package. Thirdly, the amended code requires parent carriers and their subsidiaries to provide 
other CRSs, with equal timeliness, the same information and booking possibilities as they 
provide to their own CRS. This modification was aimed principally at improving competition 
between CRSs by enabling each of them to provide fully comprehensive information on 
schedules and availability. Fourthly, rules were introduced to limit the display of code share or 
other jointly marketed flights to a maximum of two options in the principal display. Fifthly, 
access to personal and marketing data contained in a CRS was also made subject to external 
audit. Finally, a number of amendments to the rules on charging were made to improve the 
transparency of the billing procedures. 
The principal activities carried out by the Commission concerning the application of the code 
provisions, and related activities, are set out below. 
II. 1 Waivers granted 
Article 2 of the amending Regulation 3089/93 provides for a period of grace of six months 
following the entry into force of the regulation before the provision (Article 3(1)) requiring the 
establishment of separate entities for the system vendor and its parent carrier(s) applies. 
Furthermore, it provides that the Commission may grant an additional 12 months' waiver for 
objective reasons. 
The creation of separate entities for the system vendor and the parent carrier raised special 
difficulties for one parent carrier and its CRS, which was an operational division of the airline 
itself. The Commission accepted that the airline should be granted a waiver of 12 months in 
order to allow it to establish separate legal entities to be responsible for CRS's contractual 
relations with, on the one hand, participating carriers and, on the other hand, subscribers. The 
waiver expired on 11 June 1995, by which date the various legal entities had been established. 
11.2 Complaints received 
The procedure for making complaints to the Commission in respect of alleged infringements of 
the code and the Commission's duties to initiate procedures to terminate any infringements, are 
set out in Article 11 of the code. Since the entry into force of the amended code on 11 
December 1993, some twenty two complaints from air carriers and CRSs concerning alleged 
infringements of the code have been received. 
Of the complaints, six referred to alleged discrimination by CRSs in favour of their parent 
carriers. Of these, three concerned CRSs which made certain functionalities available to their 
parent carriers which were refused to other participating carriers, and three concerned 
favourable treatment given to the parent carriers of a CRS during the migration phase of that 
CRS from the former multi-access type of system to the present neutral global core system. All 
the complaints have been satisfactorily resolved following discussions with the parties concerned 
The next most frequent cause of complaint (four cases grouping some twenty one airlines) 
concerned the alleged incompatibility of CRSs charging policies with Article 10.1 of the code. 
Article 10.1 states that "Any fee charged by a system vendor shall be non-discriminatory, 
reasonably structured and reasonably related to the cost of the service provided and used and 
shall, in particular, be the same for the same level of service." The main thrust of the 
complaints was that die combined effects of the incentives granted to subscribers by CRSs and 
the inadequacy of controls on the validity of bookings exercised by CRSs, led to an unequal 
distribution of CRS costs between carriers and subscribers contrary to tlie requirements of 
Article 10.1. Given the dominant role played by CRSs in the distribution of air transport 
products and the statutory obligation placed on most major carriers (as owners of CRSs) which 
effectively requires them to participate in CRSs, a dissatisfied carrier cannot refuse to deal with 
their CRS partners. 
The issues raised in die complaints were both varied and complex, and had important 
commercial consequences for carriers, CRSs and subscribers. With a view to allowing a full 
and informed discussion of the issues to take place, die Commission set up a working group to 
examine the present charging arrangements and to consider possible alternative arrangements. 
The group was assisted in its work by an external firm of consultants (SH&E). The results of a 
study carried out by SH&E were distributed in August 1995, and formed the basis for further, 
more informed, discussions of the working group. In order to clarify the manner in which 
Article 10.1 is to be applied some amendments to the existing code provisions are being 
proposed to the Council. 
With one exception, die remaining complaints concerned specific problems relating to: the 
security of individual passenger data (two cases), display of flights (five cases), market access 
(two cases), unfair contract terms, and the conformity of ticketing arrangements. In the case of 
the security of data, it has been demonstrated that no breach of the rules occurred. Concerning 
the display of flights, in two cases the display has been modified satisfactorily, and in the three 
remaining cases no infringement of the code was found to have taken place. The problems of 
market access for an EU CRS in a third country, and of a third country CRS in the EU, have 
been resolved. In the final two cases discussions are continuing with the CRSs concerned. 
The final complaint concerned the refusal of US based CRSs to provide non-US carriers with 
marketing data relating to US domestic traffic. In accordance with the US rules for CRSs in 
force at the time, marketing information on US domestic traffic could only be provided to US 
carriers. The US provision contrasted strongly with the EU code where no such discriminatory 
provision exists, and therefore in the EU, system vendors are required to make marketing 
information available to all participating carriers regardless of nationality. However, Article 7 of 
the EU code provides that certain obligations of the code applicable to system vendors do not 
apply where reciprocal rights are not granted in third countries. The CRS Amadeus notified the 
Commission of its intention to invoke die reciprocity provision of the code in order to terminate 
the sale of its marketing information to US air carriers. 
Given the gravity of the discrimination the Commission intervened directly with the US 
Department of Transport (DOT) with a view to persuading it to modify the US code to 
eliminate the discriminatory treatment. As a result of the discussions that subsequendy took 
place between the Directorate General for Transport, ES A1, and the US DOT, an exemption 
was granted to US CRSs to enable them to sell marketing data on US domestic traffic to EU 
carriers. 
The Commission has not so far been required to take formal decisions in respect of the 
complaints it has received. It has been possible to resolve complaints within a limited time 
through direct contact with the parties. 
II.3 Other enforcement activities 
The Commission is also required to carry out assessments of the adequacy of each CRS's 
compliance with specific code requirements concerning security of data and the non­
discriminatory operation of a CRS's distribution facilities. These assessments are foreseen in 
Article 6.5 (adequacy of die safeguards on the availability of booking, marketing and sales data) 
and Article 2La (annual technical audit) 
II.3.a Data Security (Article 6.5) 
Article 6.3 of the code states that "a system vendor shall ensure that the provisions in 
paragraphs 1 and 2 [of Article 6] above are complied with, by technical means and/or 
appropriate safeguards regarding at least software, in such a way that information provided by 
or created for air carriers can in no way be accessed by one or more of the parent carriers 
except as permitted by tliis Article". Paragraphs 1 and 2 set out the detailed rules concerning the 
security of access to individual passenger booking data and the availability of marketing data. 
The system vendor is required to make a description of the technical and administrative 
measures ("security package") it has adopted available on request to all participating carriers and 
the Commission. Finally, the Commission is required to assess the adequacy of the security 
ESA - EFTA Surveillance Authority 
packages and to decide whether the measures are sufficient to provide the safeguards required 
by Article 6. 
The security packages submitted by the system vendors contained a considerable volume of 
complex technical information on the data security access policies implemented by each CRS. 
The Commission's assessment concentrated on the following aspects of the packages - the 
system structure/architecture including data bases and the main records therein, security policy 
governing access to data including the policy governing authorisation of access to users, levels 
of access, awareness of safeguards obligations under Code of Conduct, technical measures 
concerning access by parent carriers, participating carriers and subscribers. Finally, the 
assessment examined the conditions applicable to the provision of marketing, booking and sales 
data. 
As part of its on-going monitoring activities, the Commission visited a number of CRS 
installations and, amongst other matters, verified the accuracy of the information contained in 
the security packages. 
On the basis of the paper based description of the system supplemented by the visits to CRSs, 
the Commission was satisfied with the adequacy of the information provided by the system 
vendors. However, prior to taking a formal decision on the security packages as required by 
Article 6.5 of the code, it cross-checked the written description provided by the system vendor 
with the audit reports described in section II.3.b below. 
Formal decisions approving the adequacy of the safeguards were adopted by the Commission in 
September 1995 (four CRSs) and January 1996 (one CRS). 
II.3.b Annual technical audit (Article 21 .a) 
Article 21.a.l of the code requires a system vendor to ensure that "the technical compliance of 
its CRS with Articles 4a and 6 is monitored by an independent auditor". It also requires a 
system vendor to submit a copy of the auditor's report on his inspection and findings to the 
Commission once a year. This provision of the code introduced in the review of 1993 represents 
the first time that die technical compliance of a CRS with any code of conduct in force 
throughout the world has been subject to statutory audit. 
In order to provide guidance to the system vendors' auditors on the nature and extent of the 
audit checks to be carried out, die Commission appointed a specialist consultant in the field of 
computer auditing and established a working group, to jointly develop a set of CRS audit 
guidelines. The audit guidelines defined the nature and scope of the audit checks to be carried 
out based on a series of defined control objectives. The guidelines were published in October 
1994 and copies were also sent to all Member States directly. The guidelines were also used by 
the Commission's services as a standard against which the adequacy of the audit reports were to 
be judged. Although the use of die guidelines is not mandatory, the CRSs' auditors have 
generally used them as the basis for the audits they have carried out. 
7 
The 1994 audit reports of die five CRSs operating in the European Union (Amadeus, Galileo 
International, GETS, SABRE and Worldspan) were submitted to the Commission by the end of 
March 1995. They were subsequently examined by the Commission, and for two of the five 
CRSs further clarification of control weaknesses identified by the auditors was required. 
The first case concerned die security of passenger information where the CRS was using two of 
its parent carriers' internal ticketing systems for issuing tickets on behalf of all carriers. The 
CRS does not have its own ticketing system at the present time, and therefore has to rely on 
third parties for ticketing functions. The system vendor's auditor was not able to verify whether 
the parent carriers were excluded from having access to the data transmitted to their ticketing 
systems by the CRS for die purpose of issuing tickets. Although the terms of the contractual 
arrangements between the parties generally prohibited such access, there did not appear to be 
any specific technical safeguards in force to prevent it. As a result of discussions between the 
Commission and the system vendor, it was agreed that special audits of the two carriers' 
ticketing functionalities would be carried out. The results of these audits have demonstrated that 
the safeguards in place in each of the carriers is adequate to ensure that no access to confidential 
passenger data is possible by the carriers. 
In the other case, it appeared from a pre-audit check carried out by the system vendor itself that 
employees of hosted carriers (carriers whose internal reservation systems share common 
facilities with the CRS) had the possibility to access passenger details where the carrier was not 
involved in the journey and, therefore, had no legitimate interest in accessing the information. 
The system vendor immediately undertook the necessary steps to correct the programming logic 
that controlled access to passenger data. The system is now in full compliance with the 
provisions of Article 6 in tliis respect. 
The Commission is satisfied that the exhaustive nature of the checks carried out during the 
course of the audit of all CRSs would have led to the discovery of any deficiencies in the 
technical safeguards in place to meet the requirements of Articles 4a and 6(3). With the 
exception of the second case cited above, which has now been corrected, no preferential access 
to confidential passenger data and no operational advantages accrue to parent carriers of die 
CRSs present in the EU. 
The reports on the 1995 audits have not identified any material issues which require intervention 
by the Commission. 
In line with an undertaking given to CRSs when the guidelines were first adopted, the 
Commission has reviewed the audit guidelines in the light of the experience gained in the first 
year of their use. A revised version of the guidelines was issued in September 1996. 
II.4 Requests for guidance 
Over the period since the adoption of die amended code, the Commission's services have given 
guidance on the application of a particular provision of the code on three points - advertising in 
the principal display, display of code share flights and the treatment of passive bookings. The 
background to the request for clarification and the Commission's services response is set out 
below. 
The Commission's services gave their guidance on interpretation without prejudice to any other 
future positions of the Commission; it is for the Court of Justice to give binding interpretations 
of Community law pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty^ 
II.4.a Advertising in die principal display 
As part of the development of their commercial activities, CRSs wanted to offer carriers and 
others the possibility to place advertisements in the displays provided to subscribers. A number 
of CRSs sought to persuade the Commission that its concerns over the possible discriminatory 
effects of advertising in the principal display were not justified. In particular, they underlined 
the fact that their proposals envisaged the clear separation of the advertisement from the 
information contained in the principal display itself. In addition, they would ensure that the 
content of the advertisements displayed would be subject to the appropriate safeguards to 
prevent the neutrality and transparency of the display from being influenced. 
It was accepted that CRSs could include advertising in the principal display on condition that 
they would apply strict guidelines on the content of the advertisements and the number of 
advertising slots that any carrier can take. The latter restriction is required to prevent a large 
carrier buying up all available advertising slots. Tlie CRSs also have to ensure that any 
advertising is separated in a clear manner from the principal display. Finally, the advertising 
should not be used as a functionality through which bookings could be made. 
II.4.b Display of code share flights 
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Annex to the code require system vendors to ensure that no flight 
option shall be displayed more than once unless there is a joint venture or other contractual 
arrangement (such as a code share) requiring two or more carriers to assume separate 
responsibility for the offer and sale of air transport products, in which case each carrier, up to a 
maximum of two can have a separate display. From a technical standpoint, the selection of the 
two flights to be displayed is complex, and cannot be carried out by the CRS in isolation. In the 
absence of an agreement amongst carriers for an industry wide standard to be used for 
communicating the necessary information to enable the CRS to carry out the selection 
procedure, CRSs were continuing to display more than two flight options. 
The Commission's services have indicated that a proposed set of procedures providing a 
solution to this problem drawn up jointly by die Association of European Airlines and the Reed 
Travel Group, were in conformity with the code. Any air carrier following these procedures 
would therefore have discharged its obligations under die code by providing sufficient data. 
Conversely, any code-sharing air carrier not following the AEA/Reed procedure will have to 
provide the required data in anodier way. However, if a CRS is not using these procedures, it 
will have to indicate which data code-sharing air carriers will have to provide. At the same 
time, the Commission's services indicated dieir willingness to consider alternative solutions to 
this problem. 
II.4.C Passive bookings 
Meetings were held widi system vendors and carriers in early 1994 to find a mechanism for 
implementing the provisions of Article 10.1 concerning the notification of, and the possibility 
for a carrier to reject, a passive booking. As a result of the meetings, a coding structure for the 
notification and cancellation of passive bookings has been agreed and has now been 
implemented industry wide. 
10 
III. Need for an amendment to the code of conduct 
1. An analysis of die complaints submitted under the existing code of conduct 
demonstrates that the present code is generally able to provide a satisfactory mechanism for 
resolving the majority of die problems identified by carriers, CRSs and subscribers, and hence 
makes a major contribution to securing fair competition in the CRS and related markets. 
However, there are a number of specific areas where the provisions of die code may need to be 
adapted to address issues diat have been identified since the present code was adopted and, in 
particular, as a result of discussions that have taken place during the course of the charging 
principles review. In addition, important developments are taking place in the airline 
distribution sector and their effects, although they may not be significant today, will have to be 
taken into account in the code review in order that the code remains relevant for the foreseeable 
future. 
2. In the following section the Commission has set out the motivation for a number of 
suggested amendments to the code. The amendments reflect discussions held with the industry 
partners and national experts. 
a) Subscriber obligations 
3. Air transport user organisations have indicated their concern to the Commission about a 
possible shortcoming of the present code which is the absence of any direct obligation on 
subscribers concerning the use of a CRS similar to those placed on carriers and system vendors. 
The rules placed on system vendors concerning the provision of accurate and comprehensive 
information in their CRS displays are rendered ineffective if the same information is not passed 
on to the customer. Tliis should not be seen as implying that the subscriber deliberately seeks to 
mislead a customer or to misuse the system. Rather that in the face of large volumes of 
information contained in the displays, the subscriber must be selective in the information it 
passes on to the customer. In order to ensure that all stages in the process of distributing 
information on air transport services are subject to a consistent level of safeguards to guarantee 
the integrity of the final product, it is proposed that the missing link in that chain, i.e. the 
subscriber, is brought within the scope of the code. 
4. At the present time, die only manner in which a subscriber is subject to any constraint in 
the use of a CRS is found in Article 9.5, which states that "A system vendor shall provide in 
each subscriber contract for (a) the principal display, conforming to Article 5, to be accessed for 
each individual transaction, except where a consumer requests information for only one air 
carrier or where the consumer requests information for bundled air transport products alone; (b) 
the subscriber not to manipulate material supplied by CRSs in a manner which would lead to 
inaccurate, misleading or discriminatory presentation of information to consumers." During the 
charging principles review, system vendors expressed their difficulty in ensuring that their 
subscribers fully respected these provisions. By bringing subscribers directly within the scope of 
the code, any complaint concerning a subscriber's behaviour can be investigated in a more 
objective and transparent manner. 
11 
5. The first objective of the amendment is to ensure certain minimum levels of confidence 
in the non-discriminatory nature of the information provided to the customer. 
6. To meet the first objective, it is proposed that in the absence of a specific request from 
a customer, a subscriber will be required to use a neutral display. Furthermore, the subscriber 
should not manipulate the information provided by a CRS in a manner that would lead to 
inaccurate, misleading or discriminatory presentation of information to the customer. This 
provision will also apply to the use of diird party software that subscribers may use as an 
interface between die CRS and diemselves. 
7. In addition, die consumer should also be provided with full information on a number of 
key features of die flight, including any en-route changes of equipment, the number of 
scheduled en-route stops, die identity of the air carrier actually operating the flight, and of any 
changes of airport required in any itinerary provided, to the extent that this information is 
shown by die CRS. Finally, to assist consumers in their choice of flight, they shall be entided 
at any time on request to be provided with a print out of the CRS display or with access to a 
parallel CRS display reflecting the same image being viewed by the subscriber. Commercially 
sensitive data, such as "net fares", would be excluded from this provision. 
8. The second objective of die amendment is to protect the carrier from the effects of 
abusive bookings that lead to unnecessary booking fees and reduced reliability of inventory 
control systems. 
9. In respect of the second objective, the code must also ensure that the subscriber uses the 
CRS in manner which is in die best interests of all the parties involved in a transaction. 
Therefore, it is necessary that the subscriber is required to use the system only to make valid 
transactions and hence avoid die risk that a carrier is billed for unnecessary bookings. Subject to 
any derogation from tliis principle granted to the subscriber by the carrier concerned. 
10. To meet this objective, die subscriber will be required to make reservations and issue 
tickets in conformity with the information contained in the CRS used, and, where possible, 
carry out reservation and ticketing operations in the same CRS. A subscriber shall not make 
reservations for the same passenger which are physically impossible to carry out, such as 
duplicate bookings on a number of flights to guarantee a customer a seat on a flight at whatever 
time he may eventually arrive at the airport. 
(Reference: proposed Article 9. a and Annex II ) 
b) Extension of scope of code to include rail options 
11. With the rapid expansion of the high speed rail network in the EU, the consumer now 
has a competitive alternative to air transport for journeys between 300 and 800 kms. However, 
in order to take full advantage of this new choice of transport modes, or combination of modes, 
the prospective passenger needs to be able to compare the different characteristics of the services 
12 
on offer, and to be provided with a continuity of information in die case of a combination of 
modes. At the present time, rail and air services are, for the most part, distributed through 
separate channels which renders the comparison of options by the potential traveller difficult. 
There are isolated examples where rail services are currendy integrated into an air transport 
CRS display; for the most part they are identified by air carrier designator codes. 
12. The Commission is aware of the importance of distribution arrangements in the overall 
objective of encouraging interoperability. It is also aware of the possible benefits in terms of the 
improved quality of information available to the consumer and of the reduced distribution costs 
arising from the elimination of wasteful duplication of reservation systems. It is therefore 
proposing to introduce, under certain circumstances, the possibility for rail to be integrated into 
the CRS display of air transport services. 
13. It would appear that die most satisfactory method of fixing the conditions under which a 
rail transport operator could distribute its services alongside those of air carriers would be to 
apply the same obligations on the rail operator as those applicable to a participating carrier. 
Therefore, in order to avoid discrimination, it is proposed that a rail transport operator would be 
considered as an air carrier for the purposes of the code and could distribute its services in an 
integrated display if it meets die obligations placed on a participating carrier as set out in Article 
4 of the code. 
14. The question has been raised as to whether a rail operator, who also provides computer 
reservation services (for rail transport) should also be treated as a system vendor/parent carrier 
and thus be required to respect the obligations contained in Articles 3, 3a, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
10 and 21a of the code. It would appear, however, that since such reservation systems are 
designed to cater primarily for the rail operator's own services and that the participation of other 
rail operators is very limited indeed, then the rail operator's system should not be considered as 
a CRS for code purposes. 
15. The basis on which rail services will be integrated into the principal display are complex 
and must be subject to careful consideration. In particular, the possible screen padding effects 
that may be caused by the display of all rail services. It should be considered which rail services 
should be included e.g. High speed, Inter City, etc but excluding local services. However, it is 
not proposed at this stage to fix different criteria for the inclusion of rail services in die display 
algorithm. More general technical problems may arise from the substantial increase in the 
number of IATA location identifier codes required to cover all the railway stations likely to be 
included in CRS displays. It is not clear whether the existing stock of three digit codes will be 
inadequate to meet the likely demand for new codes. 
(Reference: proposed Articles 2(r), 2(s), 2(t) and 21.b ) 
c) Charging policy 
16. An extensive debate has taken place between the Commission, CRSs, carriers and 
subscribers concerning the basis on which CRSs calculate the level of fees to be charged for the 
services they provide. Several carriers have complained to the Commission that CRSs have not 
13 
respected the requirement under Article 10.1 that "Any fee charged by a system vendor shall be 
non-discriminatory, reasonably structured and reasonably related to the cost of the service 
provided and used and shall, in particular, be the same for the same level of service". They base 
their complaints on the fact that subscribers using a CRS receive discounts or incentives based 
on usage (productivity pricing or incentive schemes). They claim that a consequence of such 
schemes is that the part of the cost burden no longer borne by the subscriber is therefore 
transferred to the fee charged to the carrier. They suggest that as a result of the incentive 
payments, many large subscribers are effectively paid for the use of the CRS facilities. 
17. With the help of external consultants, the Commission carried out a detailed examination 
of CRSs' charging policies. However, the results of this examination were inconclusive on the 
issue of incentive payments to subscribers. The report suggested that the present trend in 
incentive schemes was leading to a competing spiral between CRSs in their bids for subscriber 
business which did not result in any added value for the carrier who has to foot the bill through 
increased booking fees. 
18. On the other hand, it was also recognised that the present system of incentive payments 
to subscribers is an important marketing tool for the CRSs in gaining access to new markets or 
of increasing market share in their existing markets. The CRSs consider that their charging 
policy with respect to subscribers is composed of two distinct elements, firsdy a fee for the 
provision of equipment and other services, and secondly a fee payable to the subscriber for the 
provision of distribution services to the CRS. The level of the distribution fee varies according 
to the competition in the market for such services. The consultant's report demonstrated that the 
higher the degree of competition, the higher the level of the distribution fee. Where competition 
is the most intense, the result can be that the CRS is required to pay a higher fee to subscribers 
for the distribution of its services than the fee it charges the same subscribers for the rental of 
equipment and other services. 
19. The Commission accepts that it is not in the CRSs' interest for the fees payable to 
subscribers for the distribution service to continue to increase, and that therefore CRSs have not 
deliberately set about increasing payments to subscribers in order to raise booking fee levels. 
Given the close correlation between the level of incentive payments and the extent of 
competition between CRS in a particular market, the Commission is persuaded by the CRSs' 
assertion that incentives awarded to subscribers are distribution costs. As such they can be 
included in the booking fee calculation. 
20. The Commission does not seek to prevent competition between CRSs by imposing 
restrictions on a CRSs ability to attract new business. Therefore, the obligation of a system 
vendor with respect to its charging policy to subscribers needs to be clarified. Accordingly, it is 
proposed that the existing Article 10.1 (renumbered as Article 10. La) should apply only to fees 
charged to participating carriers, and a new Article 10. Lb would be introduced requiring that 
fees charged to a subscriber for equipment, etc, should be non-discriminatory, reasonably 
structured and reasonably related to the cost of the service provided and used and shall, in 
particular, be the same for the same level of service. The level of distribution fees payable to 
14 
subscribers, which, for the reasons set out above, are considered as distribution costs for the 
system vendor, and would be dealt with as described in paragraph 19. 
21. Article 3.a. 1 .(b) of the code sets down the cost to be charged to a parent carrier when it 
is required to accept a booking in accordance with Article 3.a.l.(a). However, the present text 
is ambiguous and could lead to CRSs charging excessive fees for such bookings. To ensure that 
the provision defines more precisely the charge to be paid, it is suggested a parent carrier, in 
respect of another CRS, should not be obliged to pay more than the same CRS charges for the 
nearest equivalent transaction. 
(Reference: Articles 3.a and 10.1) 
d) Display of code-share flights 
22. In the amendment to the code adopted in 1993, participating carriers with code-share 
type arrangements were each allowed, up to a maximum of two, to have a separate display 
using their own carrier designator codes. The reasons motivating the Council's decision 
concerning code-share flights remain valid today. Essentially, they are that code-sharing can 
provide benefits to die consumer through, for example, improved connecting flights, 
streamlined check-in procedures, special fare deals, and joint frequent flyer programmes. 
23. However, it lias been suggested diat die limit of two on die number of flight options to 
be displayed is both arbitrary, and, more importantly, difficult to implement. So far, only one 
CRS has put in place a satisfactory procedure to enable carriers to comply with this provision 
("the AEA/Reeds solution"). The other three CRSs operating in the EU have announced their 
intention to implement die rule, but have identified a number of practical problems. They stem 
for the most part from the absence of sufficient information from the carriers to enable the CRS 
to identify the two options to be displayed. 
24. In these circumstances, consideration must be given to whether the present rule should 
be amended. If the rule is to be amended, diere appear to be only two possible alternatives. The 
first alternative is that all code-share flights (both operational and marketing) can be shown in 
the CRS display. Tlie second alternative is that only the operational flight itself can be shown. 
25. There is a convincing argument that the possibility to include all flight options in a CRS 
display results in an unacceptable level of "screen padding" (the CRS display shows several 
flights which appear to be operating on a route but which are all, in fact, marketing versions of 
a single operational flight). The consequence is that "genuine" operating flights are relegated to 
the second or diird display screens and stand little chance of being selected by the subscriber. As 
the majority of all bookings are made from the first screen, the practice can have severe 
discriminatory effects in favour of carriers having code-sharing arrangements. The result is also 
very confusing for the consumer. 
26. In these circumstances, the Commission considers diat the balance of the arguments 
tends to suggest that the distortive effects of the display of multiple flight options of the same 
flight outweighs the benefits to the consumer of code-share arrangements described above. 
15 
27. The proposal contained in the second alternative to the existing arrangements - only the 
operating flight to be displayed - has met with a generally negative reaction from all sides of the 
industry. The recognised benefits of the code-share arrangements would be undermined if 
carriers were unable to market die flights of their code-share partners in their own names. 
28. In the light of the above, it is proposed that the present arrangements be maintained in 
force, but clarified so diat a CRS, in the absence of adequate information to apply the two 
option rule, will be allowed to select, on a non-discriminatory basis, the options to be displayed. 
(Reference: Annex, paragraph 10) 
e) Scope of audit 
29. The present text of Article 21a concerning the audit of the technical compliance of a 
CRS requires clarification as to the period covered by the audit, the activities of the CRS that 
are subject to audit, and the deadline for the submission of the audit report. 
30. Currendy a system vendor is required to ensure that the technical compliance of its CRS 
is monitored by an independent auditor. The code does not specify whether monitoring is to be 
continuous throughout the year or limited to a specific point in time (e.g. the date on which the 
auditor carried out the audit). 
31. In order to guarantee that die controls required by the code are in place at all times, it is 
necessary for the monitoring to refer to the entire year. However, this does not necessarily 
require that the auditor is present 24 hours per day. He may rely on internal controls applied by 
management to achieve die objectives required by the code. 
32. The technical compliance of the CRS subject to monitoring by the independent auditor 
includes not only the software and hardware of die system but also the internal controls applied 
by management referred to in die previous paragraph. 
33. Finally, in the interests of the efficient organisation of the monitoring process, it is 
proposed that the audit report should cover a calendar year and be submitted within four months 
after the end of the year in question. 
(Reference: Article 2La) 
f) Ticketing arrangements for flights carrying the same flight number operated by the same 
carrier 
34. The text of die provision concerning ticketing arrangements for flights carrying the same 
flight number operated by the same carrier (paragraph 9 of the annex to the code) requires 
clarification to ensure diat the objectives intended by the Council are fully met. The code 
currently states diat "Neverdieless, only one reservation shall be necessary where the flights are 
16 
operated by the same air carrier, with the same flight number, and where the air carrier requires 
only one flight coupon. " It has been observed that the requirement of the air carrier to have only 
one flight coupon does not impose a corresponding obligation on the CRSs to issue such a 
coupon. 
35. It is therefore proposed to amend the text of the provision to read "Nevertheless, where 
the flights are operated by the same carrier with the same flight number and where a carrier 
only requires only one flight coupon and one reservation, a CRS should only issue one coupon 
and charge for one reservation ". 
(Reference: Annex, paragraph 9) 
g) Security package 
36. Article 6.4 of die code requires a system vendor to make available, within three months 
of the entry into force of the regulation, a description of the technical and administrative 
measures ("security package") which it has adopted to conform with the security of personal 
and marketing data requirements of the code (Articles 6.1 and 6.2). The Commission is 
required to decide on the adequacy of these measures to provide the safeguards required (Article 
6.5). 
37. Given that the Commission has recendy completed this assessment of the security 
packages in respect of all CRSs operating in the EU, and that the audit foreseen under Article 
21a requires the security provisions of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 to be monitored in any case, the 
requirement to submit a description of the measures taken, and for their review by the 
Commission, is no longer required. Therefore, in order mat the eventual consolidated version of 
the three code regulations properly reflects the obligations on system vendors, it is proposed that 
Articles 6.4 and 6.5 are deleted. 
38. The deletion of Article 6.5 requires that the text of Article 3.a.2 should be reviewed. 
Article 3.a.2 states that " The obligation imposed by the Article shall not apply in favour of a 
competing CRS when, in accordance with the procedures of Article 6(5) or Article 7 (3) or (4), 
it has been decided that the CRS is in breach of Article 4a or that a system vendor cannot give 
sufficient guarantees that obligations under Article 6 concerning unauthorised access of parent 
carriers to information are complied with." Since it is proposed that Article 6.5 be deleted, and 
since Articles 7(3) and 7(4) (die reciprocity provisions) already provide through Article 7.2 for 
the withdrawal of the obligation on parent carriers under Article 3.a directly, then Article 3.a.2 
should be linked to the general enforcement powers of Article 11. 
(Reference: Articles 3.a and 6) 
h) Right of a defendant to be heard 
39. Under the enforcement powers given to the Commission by the Council in Article 11 of 
the code, it is empowered to initiate procedures to terminate infringements of the provisions of 
17 
the code. In die case that the Commission intends to impose a fine on an undertaking or 
association of undertakings, it must give the parties concerned the right to be heard on the 
matters to which die Commission takes objection (Article 19). It is possible however that the 
Commission could take a decision which, without involving the imposition of a fine, could 
nevertheless have important commercial consequences for the undertaking concerned (e.g. the 
Commission may require a system vendor to remove what it considers are unfair terms in a 
participating carrier agreement). The absence of die possibility for the defendant to be heard in 
such circumstances may infringe his rights of defence. It is therefore proposed that the right to a 
hearing should be expressly granted to all defendants in cases where die Commission intends 
taking a decision. 
(Reference: Article 19) 
i) Inclusion of information systems within the scope of the code 
40. At the present time it is difficult to assess with any accuracy the developments that will 
take place in the methods of electronic distribution of air transport products. Already bookings 
can be made through the Internet on several airlines and CRSs. The question is frequently asked 
whether such systems fall widiin the scope of the code of conduct. The definition of a CRS 
according to die present code states that a "computerised reservation system means a 
computerised system containing information about, inter alia, schedules, availability, fares and 
related services, widi or widiout facilities through which reservations can be made or tickets 
may be issued, to die extent diat some or all of these services are made available to 
subscribers". 
4L However, as the Internet or similar systems only act as sophisticated communications 
links between information providers (e.g. an airline or CRS) and their subscribers and do not 
contain any information on air transport services per se, they do not appear to fall within the 
definition of a system vendor or CRS. Such systems are considered analogous to 
communication networks which do not fall directly within the scope of die code (e.g. the SITA 
network), but should come under the responsibility of a system vendor to ensure that any third 
party providing services on its behalf respects the relevant code provisions. 
42. In these circumstances, for services distributed dirough systems such as Internet, it is the 
information provider (i.e. CRS or carrier) that must ensure compliance with the code 
provisions. Special attention should be paid in this respect to die fact tiiat the code definition of 
a CRS refers to air carriers in the plural, therefore a carrier using the Internet or a similar 
service to display information about its own services alone would not be considered as a CRS. 
However, as soon as it chose to display odier carriers' services, then it may risk being 
considered as a CRS, and expected to comply with die code accordingly. 
43. Article 21 of the code presently exempts a CRS used by an air carrier or group of air 
carriers in its/their own offices from the rules concerning die neutrality of the principal display. 
The consumer would not reasonably expect to receive unbiased information from the offices or 
sales counters of an air carrier. The application of the same principle to services provided 
through systems such as the Internet should permit a group of carriers - those with code share or 
18 
other similar agreements but not simply interline agreements (since this could severely limit the 
number of CRSs falling within the scope of the code) - to offer information on their air 
transport products without being subject to the provisions of Article 5 and 9(5). It is proposed 
that Article 21 also be amended to ensure consistency. 
44. To ensure that CRS services that are provided in an electronic means directly to the user 
are also covered by die code, it is proposed that the definition of a subscriber be amended to 
refer to the "user of a CRS" by deleting reference to the distribution facilities. This would also 
have the effect of clarifying that information systems are covered by the code. 
(Reference: Article 2.1 and proposed Articles 21 and 21.c) 
j) Obligations of diird parties 
45. In order to clarify the manner in which information systems, as with any other third 
party providing services on behalf of a system vendor, fall within the scope of the code, it is 
proposed that an obligation be placed on a system vendor to specifically ensure in its relations 
with third parties the duty to respect the relevant code provisions. 
(Reference: Article 4.a) 
k) Ranking of flights 
46. With die increase in the use of hub and spoke arrangements by carriers, the service 
provided by indirect flights can now be of an equivalent level to diat offered on other direct 
flights involving stops at intermediate points. 
47. The ranking criteria contained in paragraph 1 of the Annex to die code should be 
amended such diat die ordering of the display of flights is firsdy all non stop flights between the 
city pair concerned, and secondly all other flights. 
(Reference: Annex, paragraph 1) 
1) Billing information on magnetic media 
48. Amongst other matters, Article 10.1 of die code requires diat a system vendor offers 
billing information on magnetic media. This provision recognises die fact that the audit of CRS 
bills can only be satisfactorily carried out by electronic means. Tlie volume of booking data 
involved is so great that alternative billing media such as microfiche or paper are inadequate. 
19 
49. System vendors normally charge a fee for providing billing information on magnetic 
media (BIDT - billing information data tapes) but not for the provision of information on other 
media. The fee is considerably higher than the cost of the tape itself. To ensure that the 
objective of the provision is not impaired by the charge made for the BIDT by the system 
vendor, it is proposed diat the fee to be charged for billing information on magnetic media 
should not exceed the cost of the media itself together with transportation costs thereof. 
(Reference: Article 10.1) 
m) Other 
50. Article 23.2 of Reg 2299/89 has ceased to be required following the passage of time and 
can therefore be deleted. 
(Article 23.2 of Reg 2299/89) 
20 
Proposal for a 
Council Regulation (EC) 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 
on a Code of Conduct for computer reservation systems (CRSs) 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 75 
and 84(2) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission , 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty in co-
operation with the European Parliament , 
Whereas Council Regulation No 2299/894 as amended by Regulation No 3089/935 has made a 
major contribution to ensuring fair and unbiased conditions for air carriers in computer 
reservation systems, thereby protecting the interests of consumers; 
Whereas it is necessary to extend the scope of Regulation No 2299/89 and to clarify its 
provisions and it is appropriate to take these measures at Community level to ensure that the 
objectives of the Regulation are met in all Member States; 
Whereas this Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the 
Treaty; 
Whereas this Regulation is without prejudice to the application of the Directive 95/46/EC 
of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of 
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and of the free movement of such 
data; 
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3652/93 as amended by the Act of Accession of 
Austria, Finland and Sweden, exempts from the provisions of Article 85(1) of the Treaty 
agreements for the common purchase, development and operation of computer reservation 
systems; 
l 
2 
3 
4 OJNoL220, 29.7.1989, pi 
OJNoL278, 11.11.1993, pi 
6 
OJNoL333, 31.12.1993, p37 
21 
Whereas systems providing information direcdy to the consumer by electronic means through 
public telecommunications networks should be brought within the scope of the code; 
Whereas it is desirable to clarify the basis on which parent carriers should be charged for 
bookings they are required to accept from competing CRSs; 
Whereas it is necessary to clarify the basis on which CRSs charge for the services they provide 
to participating carriers and subscribers to improve transparency; 
Whereas it is necessary to ensure that third parties carrying out services on behalf of a CRS are 
subject to the same obligations die code imposes on that CRS; 
Whereas the effectiveness of the code's CRS audit requirements has rendered unnecessary the 
separate assessment by the Commission of a CRS's data security arrangements ; 
Whereas it is necessary to include subscribers direcdy within the scope of the code so that the 
reservation services tiiey provide to their customers are not inaccurate, misleading or 
discriminatory; 
Whereas the right of a defendant to be heard on matters to which the Commission takes 
objection need to be expressly foreseen! 
Whereas the integration of rail services into the CRS display of air transport services can 
improve the quality of information available to consumers and eliminate the wasteful duplication 
of distribution services; 
Whereas rail operators distributing services through integrated air and rail CRSs should be 
subject to the same conditions as air carriers! 
Whereas information or distribution facilities offered by carriers having joint venture or other 
contractual arrangements should not be subject to the code provisions; 
Whereas the ranking criteria for the display of flights should provide consumers with the best 
options for their air travel arrangements, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
Regulation No 2299/89 is hereby amended as follows: 
22 
1. Article 1 is replaced by the following: 
"Article 1 
This Regulation shall apply to computerised reservation systems to the extent that they 
contain air transport products, with or without the incorporation of rail transport products, 
when offered for use and/or used in the territory of the Community, irrespective of: 
the status or nationality of the system vendor, 
the source of the information used or the location of the relevant central data 
processing unit, 
the geographical location of the airports between which air carriage takes place. " 
2. Article 2 is amended as follows: 
a) Paragraph (1) is replaced by the following: 
"(1) 
"subscriber" means a person, other than a consumer, or an undertaking, other than a 
participating carrier, using a CRS under contract or other financial arrangement with a system 
vendor; " 
b) Paragraph (m) is replaced by the following: 
"(m) 
"consumer" means any person seeking information about and/or intending to purchase an 
air transport product; where a system vendor has a financial arrangement with a consumer, 
the principles of neutrality of this Regulation shall apply; 
c) Paragraph (q) is added: 
" (q) 
"rail transport operator" means any private or public undertaking whose main business is to 
provide rail transport services to passengers." 
d) Paragraphs (r), (s) and (t) are added 
"(r) "unbundled rail transport product" means the carriage by rail of a passenger 
between two stations, including any related ancillary services and additional benefits 
offered for sale and/or sold as an integral part of that product; 
(s) "bundled rail transport product" means a pre-arranged combination of an unbundled 
rail transport product with other services not ancillary to rail transport, offered for 
sale and/or sold at an inclusive price; 
(t) "rail transport product" means both unbundled and bundled rail transport products;" 
23 
3. Article 3a. is amended as follows: 
a) Subparagraph l.(b) is replaced by the following: 
"(b) 
The parent carrier shall not be obliged to accept any costs in this connection except for 
reproduction of the information to be provided and for accepted bookings. The booking 
fee payable to a CRS for an accepted booking made in accordance with this Article 
should not exceed the fee charged by the same CRS for the nearest equivalent 
transaction. " 
b) Paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 
"2 
The obligation imposed by the Article shall not apply in favour of a competing CRS 
when, in accordance with the procedures of Article 11, it has been decided that the 
CRS is in breach of Article 4a or Article 6 concerning unauthorised access of parent 
carriers to information. " 
"4 Article 4a.4 is added: 
The system vendor shall ensure that any third parties providing in whole or in part 
CRS services on its behalf respect the relevant provisions of this regulation. " 
Articles 6.4 and 6.5 are deleted 
The following Article 9.a is inserted: 
"Article 9a 
(a) As regards information provided by a CRS, a subscriber shall use a neutral display in 
conformity with Article 5.2.(a) and (b) unless another display is required to meet a 
preference indicated by a consumer. 
(b) A subscriber shall not manipulate information provided by a CRS in a manner that 
will lead to inaccurate, misleading or discriminatory presentation of such information to 
the consumer. 
(c) A subscriber shall make reservations and issue tickets in conformity with the 
information contained in the CRS used or as authorised by the carrier concerned. 
24 
(d) A subscriber shall inform the consumer of any en-route changes of equipment, the 
number of scheduled en-route stops, the identity of the air carrier actually operating the 
flight, and of any changes of airport required in any itinerary provided, to the 
extent that this information is present in the CRS. 
(e) A consumer shall be entitled at any time to have a print out of the CRS display or 
be provided with access to a parallel CRS display reflecting the same image being 
displayed to the subscriber. 
A subscriber shall use the distribution facilities of a CRS as described in Annex II of this 
code" 
7. Article 10.1 is replaced by the following: 
"l.(a) Any fee charged to a participating carrier by a system vendor shall be non­
discriminatory, reasonably structured and reasonably related to the cost of the service 
provided and used and shall, in particular, be the same for the same level of service. 
The billing for the services of a CRS shall be sufficiently detailed to allow the 
participating carriers to see exactly which services have been used and the fees 
therefor; as a minimum, booking fee bills must include the following information for 
each segment: 
type of CRS booking, 
passenger name, 
country, 
I AT A/ARC agency identification code, 
city-code, 
city pair of segment, 
booking date (transaction date), 
flight date, 
flight number, 
status code (booking status), 
service type (class of service), 
PNR record locator, 
booking/cancellation indicator. 
The billing information shall be offered on magnetic media. The fee to be charged for 
the billing information provided on magnetic media shall not exceed the cost of the 
media itself together with transportation costs thereof. 
A participating air carrier shall be offered the facility of being informed at the time that 
any booking/transaction is made for which a booking fee will be charged. Where a 
carrier elects to be so informed, it shall be offered the option to disallow such 
booking/transaction, unless the latter has already been accepted. 
25 
(b) Any fee for equipment rental or other service charged to a subscriber by a 
system vendor shall be non-discriminatory, reasonably structured and reasonably 
related to the cost of the service provided and used and shall, in particular, be the 
same for die same level of service. Productivity based benefits awarded to subscribers 
by system vendors in die form of discounts on rental charges or commission payments, 
are considered as distribution costs of the system vendor. 
The billing for die services of a CRS shall be sufficiendy detailed to allow subscribers 
to see exactly which services have been used and the fees therefor; " 
8. Article 19.1 is replaced by the following: 
Before taking decisions pursuant to Articles 11 or 16, the Commission shall give the 
undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned the opportunity of being heard 
on the matters to which die Commission takes, or has taken, objection. " 
9 Article 21 is replaced by die following: 
"Article 21 
The provisions in Article 5, Article 9(5) and the Annex to this Regulation shall not 
apply to a CRS used by an air carrier or a group of air carriers, which have a 
joint venture or odier contractual arrangement, but excluding interline agreement, in its 
(their) own office(s) and sales counters clearly identified as such. 
10. Article 21a. 1 is replaced by the following: 
The system vendor shall ensure that the technical compliance of its CRS with Articles 
4a and 6 is monitored by an independent auditor on a calendar year basis. For this 
purpose, die auditor shall be granted access at any time to any programs, procedures, 
operations and safeguards used on the computers or computer systems through which 
the system vendor is providing its distribution facilities. Each system vendor shall 
submit its auditor's report on his inspection and findings to die Commission within 
four months of the end of the calendar year under review. This report shall be 
examined by the Commission with a view to any necessary action in accordance with 
Article 11 (1)." 
26 
11. The following Articles 21b and 21c are added: 
"Article 21b 
A rail transport operator will be considered as a participating carrier for the purposes of 
the code on condition that it has an agreement with a system vendor for the distribution 
of its products through a CRS. Its services shall be treated in the same manner as air 
transport products and be incorporated into the principal display in accordance with the 
criteria set out in Annex I. to the code. All references to "flights" in this Regulation 
shall be deemed also to include references to "rail travel". 
Article 21c 
Where two or more carriers have a joint venture or other contractual arrangement, but 
excluding interline agreement, to provide information and/or distribution facilities 
accessible through a public telecommunications network, clearly identifying the 
arrangement as such, the information/distribution facilities will not be subject to the 
provisions of the code. " 
12. Article 22.1 is replaced by the following: 
"Article 22.1 
This Regulation shall be without prejudice to national legislation on security, public 
order and data protection measures taken in application of Directive 95/46/CE. ". 
13. Article 23 is replaced by the following: 
"Article 23 
The Council shall decide on the revision of this Regulation by 31 December 2002 at 
the latest, on the basis of a Commission proposal to be submitted by 31 March 2002, 
accompanied by a report on the application of this Regulation." 
14. The Annex is replaced by Annex I and Annex II set out in the Annex. 
Article 2 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 30th day following its publication in the Official 
Journal of the European Communities. 
This regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
The President 
27 
ANNEX 
"ANNEX I 
Principal display ranking criteria for flights offering unbundled air transport products. 
1. Ranking of flight options in a principal display, for the day or days requested, 
shall be in die following order unless requested in a different way by a consumer for an 
individual transaction: 
(i) all non-stop direct flights between the city-pairs concerned, 
(ii) all odier flights. 
2. A consumer shall at least be afforded the possibility of having, on request, a 
principal display ranked by departure or arrival time and/or elapsed journey time. 
Unless otherwise requested by a consumer, a principal display shall be ranked by 
departure time for group (i) and elapsed journey time for group (ii). 
3. Where a system vendor chooses to display information for any city-pair in 
relation to die schedules or fares of non-participating carriers, but not necessarily all 
such carriers, such information shall be displayed in an accurate, non-misleading and 
non-discriminatory manner between carriers displayed. 
4. If, to the system vendor's knowledge, information on the number of direct 
scheduled air services and the identity of the air carriers concerned is not 
comprehensive, diis shall be clearly stated on the relevant display. 
5. Flights odier than scheduled air services shall be clearly identified. 
6. Flights involving stops en route shall be clearly identified. 
7. Where flights are operated by an air carrier which is not the air carrier identified 
by the carrier designator code, the actual operator of the flight shall be clearly identified. 
This requirement shall apply in all cases, except for short-term ad hoc arrangements. 
8. A system vendor shall not use the screen space in a principal display in a manner 
which gives excessive exposure to one particular travel option or which displays 
unrealistic travel options. 
9. Except as provided for in paragraph 10, the following shall apply: 
(a) for direct services, no flights shall be featured more than once in a 
principal display; 
(b) for multi-sector services involving a change of aircraft, no combination 
of flights shall be featured more than once in a principal display; 
28 
(c) flights involving a change of aircraft shall be treated and displayed as 
connecting flights, widi one line per aircraft segment. 
Nevertheless, where the flights are operated by the same carrier with the same flight 
number and where a carrier only requires only one flight coupon and one reservation, 
a CRS should only issue one coupon and charge for one reservation 
10. 1. Where participating carriers have joint venture or other contractual 
arrangements requiring two or more of them to assume separate responsibility for the 
offer and sale of air transport products on a flight or combination of flights, the terms 
'flight' (for direct services) and 'combination of flights' (for multi-sector services) in 
paragraph 9 shall be interpreted as allowing each of the carriers concerned - up to a 
maximum of two - to have a separate display using its individual carrier designator 
code. 
2. Where more than two carriers are involved, designation of the two carriers 
entided to avail tiiemselves of the exception provided for in subparagraph 1 shall be a 
matter for the carrier actually operating the flight. In the absence of sufficient 
information from the operating carrier to identify the two carriers to be designated, a 
system vendor may designate the carriers on a non-discriminatory basis. 
11. A principal display shall, wherever practicable, include connecting flights on 
scheduled services which are operated by participating carriers and are constructed by 
using a minimum number of nine connecting points. A system vendor shall accept a 
request by a participating carrier, to include an indirect service, unless the routing is in 
excess of 130% of die great circle distance between the two airports or except where this 
would lead to the exclusion of services with a shorter elapsed journey time. Connecting 
points widi routings in excess of 130% need not be used. 
Annex II 
Use of distribution facilities by subscribers 
1. A subscriber shall keep accurate records covering all CRS reservation transactions. 
These shall include flight numbers, reservations booking designators, date of travel, departure 
and arrival times, status of segments, names and initials of passengers with their contact address 
and/or telephone number and ticketing status. When booking or cancelling space, the subscriber 
must ensure that the reservation designator being used corresponds to the fare paid by the 
passenger. 
2. A subscriber shall not make duplicate reservations for the same passenger. In cases 
where confirmed space is not available on the customer's choice, die passenger may be 
waitlisted on that flight (if wait-list is available) and confirmed on an alternate flight. 
29 
3. Whenever a passenger cancels a reservation, the subscriber must immediately release 
such space. 
4. When a passenger changes an itinerary, die subscriber shall ensure that all space and 
supplementary services are cancelled at the time the new reservations are made. 
5. A subscriber shall, where practicable, request or process all reservations for a specific 
itinerary, and all subsequent changes, through one CRS. 
6. A subscriber shall only request or sell airline space when requested to do so by a 
consumer. 
7. A subscriber shall ensure that a ticket is issued in accordance with the reservation status 
of each segment and in accordance with the applicable time limit. A subscriber shall not issue a 
ticket indicating a definite reservation and a particular flight unless confirmation of such 
reservation has been received. " 
30 
Impact Assessment Form 
The Impact of the Proposal on Business 
with special reference to small and medium sized enterprises 
Proposal for an amendment of the Code of Conduct for Computerised Reservation Systems 
(Council Regulation 2299/89 as amended by Regulation 3089/93). 
The proposal 
1. Why is Community legislation necessary in this area and what are its main aims? 
The proposal contains a number of amendments to an existing Regulation to reflect 
developments in the sector since 1993. The Community has competence to regulate the 
activities of CRSs. 
The Impact on business 
2. Who will be affected by the proposal? 
The principal businesses affected by the proposal are the CRS companies, of which there are 
five (Amadeus, Galileo, Gets, SABRE and Worldspan) operating in the EU. They do not fall 
into the definition of SMEs. 
Part of the amendment proposes that subscribers (mainly travel agents) must use the 
computerised reservation systems (CRSs) in a neutral and non-discriminatory manner and 
provide customers with adequate information on the principal characteristics of the flight 
selected. However, this proposal already applies to the majority of travel agents in the EU, 
who are I ATA agents, since it already exists as the I ATA Code of Reservation Ethics. 
3. What will businesses have to do to comply with the proposal? 
Generally, the amendments to the code require system owners and subscribers to use the 
CRSs in a non-discriminatory manner. 
4. What economic effects is the proposal likely to have? 
Part of the amendment proposes that rail operators should be allowed to distribute their 
services through the CRSs in an integrated display with air transport services. This should 
lead to a greater demand for rail services and facilitate the development of interoperability 
between rail and air services. 
5. Does the proposal contain measure to take account of the specific situation of SMEs? 
No. 
2>A 
Consultation 
6. List the organisations consulted. 
Association of European Airlines (AEA) 
Orient Airlines Association (OAA) 
European Communities Travel Agents Association (ECTAA) 
Guild of Business Travel Agents (GEBTA) 
CRSs (Amadeus, Galileo, Gets, SABRE and Worldspan) 
CER (Community of European Railways) 
IATA 
European Regional Airlines Association (ERA) 
Air Transport Users Council (AUC) 
3a 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 246 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 07 15 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-97-237-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-20131-6 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
Z3