Patent Publication Number: US-2009240517-A1

Title: Method and system for attribute-based evaluation of travel-related products and services

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION 
     This application claims the benefit of Provision Application No. 60/987,009, filed Nov. 9, 2007. 
    
    
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
     The present invention is related to automated evaluation of travel-related products and services and, in particular, to a method and system that evaluates one or more descriptions of travel-related products and/or services by evaluating a number of attributes associated with travel-related products and services and by then computing one or more scores from the attribute values. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     During the past ten years, the emergence of widespread usage of the Internet for retailing products and services has greatly transformed consumer access to products and services. It is currently possible for consumers to easily and efficiently comparison shop for products and services on the Internet, to obtain detailed consumer reports about, and evaluations of, products and services from the Internet, and to purchase the products and services from Internet retailers. Many Internet retailers provide detailed consumer evaluations of the products and services offered by the Internet retailers, and certain Internet retailers provide links to alternative sources of products and services, should a consumer wish to purchase products and services from a retailer other than the retailer through which the consumer initially accesses product-and/or-service information. 
     While the amount of information available to consumers with regard to available products and services has increased enormously, and while the overall efficiency and convenience of Internet-based shopping represents a huge improvement over telephone, catalog-based, and travel-to-retail-establishment-based shopping, the ease and efficiency of Internet-based electronic shopping is, nonetheless, evaluated from the standpoint of overall improvements in communications made possible by technological advances. There is still room for improvement in the efficiency and ease of use by which consumers can evaluate alternative purchase options. In particular, evaluating and purchasing travel-related products and services may still pose numerous problems and inefficiencies to consumers. There are, for example, many different aspects to even simple travel products, including air travel to and from a specific destination. Although detailed information on any particular flight or itinerary is available on the Internet, a consumer may nonetheless need to spend significant time and effort in locating and assembling the information in order to evaluate particular travel products. Similar considerations apply to travel agents using the Internet to locate travel options for clients. Travel-product vendors, Internet-based travel-product-and-service providers, web-based retail-site developers, and, ultimately, consumers of products marketed and advertised through the Internet, continue to seek new and better methods and systems for Internet-based retailing of travel-related products and services. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     Embodiments of the present invention are directed to providing automated evaluation of travel-related products and services to consumers. The evaluations may be carried out by a travel-related-products-and-services provider, by a separate products-and-services evaluator on behalf of the vendor, or by a client-side component of an evaluation system. Travel-related products and services are evaluated, according to certain embodiments of the present invention, by computing values for a number of attributes associated with travel-related products and services, and by then computing one or more scores based on the computed values of the attributes. In certain embodiments of the present invention, one or more scores for each travel-related product and/or service are displayed to a user to facilitate the user&#39;s selection of a product and/or service. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1A  illustrates automated evaluation of travel-related products and services, according to embodiments of the present invention, in a generalized context. 
         FIG. 1B  illustrates the requests-and-information provision provided by components of the travel-related products-and-services evaluation system according to one embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 1C  illustrates a second embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 1D  illustrates a third embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 1E  shows a fourth alternative embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 1F  illustrates a fifth embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 2  illustrates evaluation of travel-related products and services according to various embodiments of the present invention. 
         FIGS. 3A-C  provide control-flow diagrams for a general “score entries” routine used to evaluate and score each product and/or service in a list of products and/or services according to embodiments of the present invention. 
         FIG. 4  shows how an itinerary data record is created in the distribution and sale of airline tickets according to various embodiments of the present invention. 
         FIG. 5  demonstrates one example of the travel scoring matrix interaction with the itinerary data record in the evaluation of airline itineraries according to various embodiments of the present invention. 
         FIG. 6  illustrates an example interface of an example trip quality dashboard according to various embodiments of the present invention. 
         FIG. 7  illustrates a relational database structure for use with the TSMs and travel scoring processes according to on embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIGS. 8-11  illustrate user steps in evaluating travel options according to one embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 12  illustrates licensing of the travel scoring matrix and travel scoring process to third parties for use in their applications according to on embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 13  illustrates a private/white label of consumer-facing travel shopping web site by embedding a portion or entire TQSS into a third party application to provide travel functionality according to on embodiment of the present invention. 
         FIG. 14  is an example block diagram of use of a Travel Quality Scoring System to provide quality measurements of travel-related products. 
         FIG. 15  is an example block diagram of example components of a Travel Quality Scoring System. 
         FIG. 16  is an example block diagram of an example computing system that may be used to practice embodiments of a Travel Quality Scoring System. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     Embodiments of the present invention are directed to automated evaluation of travel-related products and services to facilitate purchase of travel-related products and services by consumers. Embodiments of the present invention are described, below, in three subsections and two appendices. A first subsection provides an overview of a variety of embodiments of the present invention. A second subsection provides a more detailed discussion of several embodiments of the present invention. A third subsection provides additional details of hardware platforms used for, and architectures of, embodiments of the present invention. A first appendix includes a database schema for one embodiment of the present invention, and a second appendix includes detailed pseudocode for an implementation of that embodiment of the present invention. 
     Overview 
       FIGS. 1A-F  illustrate automated, attribute-based evaluation of travel-related products and services according to various embodiments of the present invention.  FIG. 1A  illustrates automated evaluation of travel-related products and services, according to embodiments of the present invention, in a generalized context. In  FIG. 1A , a list of alternative products and/or services  102 , along with evaluation scores, such as evaluation score  104 , is displayed on a display monitor  106  of a consumer&#39;s personal computer (“PC”)  108 . The list of travel products and/or services  102  and associated evaluation scores are obtained by the user from one or more remote service providers via the Internet  110 , the one or more service providers including a travel-related products-and-services vendor  112  (“vendor”) and a travel-related products-and-services evaluation service  114  (“evaluation service”). In  FIG. 1A , the travel-related products-and-services vendor  112  and travel-related products-and-services evaluation service  114  are each represented as a high-end computer cluster with associated data storage. 
     In general, a consumer requests information about travel-related products and/or services through a web browser or other client-side application program. The client-side application program, in turn, requests the information, on behalf of the consumer, from either the vendor  112  or the evaluation service  114 . The requested information is returned to the client-side application, which assembles the information into a graphical display  102  annotated with evaluation results. In the case shown in  FIG. 1A , numeric scores associated with each alternative travel-related product or service are displayed in the list of products and services  102 . As one example, the consumer may have requested information about vacation packages to luxurious tropical islands, and, in response to the request, is presented with a graphical list of various alternative tropical-island holiday packages, each annotated with an evaluation score, such as evaluation score  104 , representing a total desirability or quality of the travel package as determined by an automated travel-related products-and-services evaluation method and system, according to one embodiment of the present invention. As discussed in greater detail, below, the evaluation score may be a single, total score or, alternatively, may comprise numerical or text values for one or more attributes associated with the products and services. Furthermore, as discussed below, the attributes evaluated, and the weights associated with the attributes, may be, in certain embodiments of the present invention, selected by the user so that the automated evaluations are tailored to reflect the user&#39;s personal criteria for evaluating products and services. 
       FIG. 1B  illustrates the requests sent, and information provided, by components of the travel-related products-and-services evaluation system according to one embodiment of the present invention.  FIGS. 1C-F  illustrate alternative embodiments of the present invention using the same illustration conventions. In the embodiment shown in  FIG. 1B , the user requests information about a specific type of travel-related product or service  120  by directing a request to the evaluation service  114 . The evaluation service, in turn, requests information about the travel-related product or service  121  from the vendor  112 , which returns a list of travel-related product or service alternatives  122  to the evaluation service. The evaluation service then automatically evaluates each alternative, producing an evaluation score that the evaluation service uses to annotate the list of alternatives, returning the annotated list of alternative product or service options  123  to the client-side application on the user&#39;s PC. The client-side application then displays the annotated list of alternative product or service options  124  on the display monitor of the user&#39;s PC. Alternatively, the annotated list of alternative product or service options can be printed on a printer, stored in a computer-readable medium for subsequent access by the user, or transmitted for display, storage, or printing by another of the user&#39;s electronic devices. 
       FIG. 1C  illustrates a second embodiment of the present invention. In  FIG. 1C , the request for information is sent  125  by the client-side application on the user&#39;s PC to the vendor  112 . The vendor prepares a list of alternative products and services  126  and transmits that list to the evaluation service  114 . The vendor evaluates the alternatives, annotates the list with evaluation scores. and returns the annotated list  127  to the client-side application on the user&#39;s PC for communication to the user via display, printing, storage for subsequent access, or transmission to another of the user&#39;s devices. 
       FIG. 1D  illustrates a third embodiment of the present invention. In the third embodiment, the request for product and/or service information is sent  130  by the client-side application on the user&#39;s PC to the vendor  112 . The vendor prepares a list of alternative product and/or service options and transmits that list  131  to the evaluation service  114 . The evaluation service evaluates the alternatives, assigns to each alternative one or more evaluation scores, and returns the evaluation scores back  132  to the vendor, which, in turn, forwards the annotated list of alternatives  133  to the client-side application on the user&#39;s PC.  FIG. 1E  shows a fourth alternative embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the client-side application on a user&#39;s PC transmits a request for information about specific products and/or services  135  to the vendor  114 , which prepares a list of alternative products and services and returns the list  136  back to the client-side application. The client-side application then forwards the list of alternatives  137  to the evaluation service  114 . The evaluation service evaluates the alternatives and assigns evaluation scores to the alternatives, returning the assigned scores  138  back to the client-side application for communication to the user.  FIG. 1F  illustrates a fifth embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the client-side application transmits the request for product-and/or-service information  140  to the vendor  112 , receiving back from the vendor a list of alternative products and services according to the request  141 . The client-side application then carries out an evaluation of the returned product-and/or-service list, assigning scores to each alternative  142 . The client-side application then displays the list of alternatives annotated with the evaluation scores  143 . The client-side evaluation program may access locally stored information that is periodically updated  144  by the evaluation service  114  or, alternatively, by the vendor  145 . 
     To summarize  FIGS. 1A-F , embodiments of the present invention provide automatic evaluation of travel-related products and/or services. The automated evaluation may be carried out by one or more evaluation programs that run on an evaluation-service computer system, that run on a vendor computer system, or that run on a user&#39;s PC. A client-side application running on the user&#39;s PC requests information about a specific travel-related product or service from either the vendor, in certain embodiments, or the evaluation service, in other embodiments of the present invention, and the requested information is then evaluated by the automated evaluation programs in order to annotate of the information about specific travel-related product or service with evaluation scored for return to the user. Results of automated evaluation may be one or more numeric, textural, or graphical scores that facilitate rapid comparison, by a user or consumer, in order to select the best alternative product or service from a list of alternatives. 
       FIG. 2  illustrates evaluation of travel-related products and services according to various embodiments of the present invention. In  FIG. 2 , a list  202  of travel itineraries  203 - 207  is evaluated according to various attributes to produce, for each itinerary, a final numeric score. The scores are then used to annotate the list of itineraries to produce a result set of itineraries  210 . Thus, for example, itinerary I 1    203  is evaluated as having an evaluation score of “69”  212 . In  FIG. 2 , the contents of the itineraries are shown as they would be displayed to a user in a graphical user interface. Of course, for computational purposes, this information may be stored in various different records or database tables. 
     Evaluation of the itineraries I 1 , I 2 , . . . , I n  in the initial list of itineraries I is essentially, in one embodiment of the present invention, a two-step process. In a first step, a function f j (I i ,D,A) associated with each attribute a j  along a list of attributes A is called to return a value for the attributed a j  for each entry i. In  FIG. 2 , the list of attributes A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A m  are shown as a table  216 . Evaluation of each attribute A j  for each individual itinerary I i  may involve consideration of the information contained in the itinerary I i , information accumulated by an evaluation service and stored in a database D  218 , and the values of other attributes associated particularly with itinerary I i  or associated with any or all of the itineraries I 1 , I 2 , . . . , I n . Each attribute in Table A  216  is also associated with a weight. Evaluation of each attribute for each itinerary produces a matrix M  220  of itinerary/attribute values. In a first pass, the attributes for which values can be determined solely from information contained in the corresponding itinerary and from the database are evaluated, and, in a second pass, all remaining attributes are evaluated. Finally, one or more final scores are computed for each itinerary based on the contents of matrix M, the computation represented in  FIG. 2  by the function F(M(I i ))  222 . In other words, in order to produce the total score “69”  212  for the first itinerary I 1 , the function F is called with values for all of the attributes associated with itinerary I 1 , stored in the first row  224  of the matrix M  220 . In cases of incomplete information, default values for attributes may be used. Note that the weights associated with attributes are used to modify the attribute values returned by the functions f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f n  in order to tailor evaluation for particular users or classes of users. Attribute values in the final completed scores are generally normalized with respect to the applied weights in order to produce a uniform range of scores or other metrics that represent results of the evaluation process. 
     Evaluation of travel-related products and/or services, as discussed above, may be carried out in a vendor computer system, an evaluation-service computer system, or in a consumer&#39;s PC. In general, a list of products and/or services is obtained from an information source and then evaluated by one or more computer programs that assign one or more evaluation scores to each entry in the list.  FIGS. 3A-C  provide control-flow diagrams for a general “score entries” routine used to evaluate and score each product and/or service in a list of products and/or services according to embodiments of the present invention. 
       FIG. 3A  provides a control-flow diagram for the routine “score entries.” In step  302 , a list of entries is received. As discussed above, the entries are essentially records with data fields that describe a travel-related product or service, such as an air-travel itinerary, a vacation package, or some other travel-related product or service. In step  304 , those attributes that can be evaluated from information contained in the entries or in a database are evaluated for each entry in the list of entries received in step  302 . In step  306 , any remaining attributes, the evaluation of which depend on values of other attributes, are evaluated. Then, in the for-loop comprising steps  308 - 310 , each entry in the list of entries is assigned one or more evaluation scores by considering the attribute values for each entry determined in steps  304  and  306 , above. Finally, in step  312 , the scores are prepared for communication to a user. The scores may, in certain embodiments, be used to annotate the originally received list of entries, as shown in  FIG. 2 . Alternatively, the scores may be returned for subsequent combination with the list of entries, by a client-side application, or for use in preparing any of numerous different types of displays of the information to the user. 
       FIG. 3B  is a control-flow diagram for the routine “evaluate entry-specific attributes” called in step  304  of  FIG. 3A . This routine includes an outer for-loop, comprising steps  320 - 325 , in which each entry in the list is considered, and an inner for-loop, comprising steps  321 - 324 , in which each attribute in the list of attributes is considered. When the currently considered attribute can be evaluated considering only information contained in the currently considered entry and the database, the currently considered attribute is evaluated in step  323 . 
       FIG. 3C  is a control-flow diagram for the routine “evaluate global attributes” called in step  306  of  FIG. 3A . This routine also consists of an outer for-loop, comprising steps  330 - 336 , in which each entry is considered and an inner for-loop, comprising steps  331 - 335 , in which each attribute is considered. If the currently considered attribute has not yet been evaluated, due to the fact that it depends on the values of other attributes, as determined in step  332 , then the attribute is evaluated in step  333 . Following evaluation of all the attributes for a particular entry, the weights associated with each attribute are multiplicatively applied to the attribute values to produce final attribute values for storage in the matrix M ( 220  in  FIG. 2 ), in step  335 . 
     The contents of the database ( 218  in  FIG. 2 ), list entries ( 203 - 207  in  FIG. 2 ), the number and types of attributes and the associated functions for computing attribute values ( 216  in  FIG. 2 ), and the evaluation routine ( 220  in  FIG. 2 ) may all very significantly depending on the particular client-side application, type of product and/or service being evaluated, the client-side application, and the evaluation service. Particular embodiments of the present invention are discussed, below, with detailed descriptions of the attributes, attribute-value-calculation routines, database contents, and entry contents. 
     One Embodiment of the Present Invention 
     An example Travel Quality Scoring System (“TQSS”), called InsideTrip™, provides an evaluation mechanism for travel that ingests standard itinerary data from a global distribution system or other travel distribution system that emits travel and/or itinerary data, compares the ingested data to a set of quality metrics, and generates a composite trip quality score (“TQS”). The TQSS creates the trip quality score based upon attributes of the travel product in question, which are referred to as “trip attributes,” as they typically pertain to an instance of travel, such as a trip to a particular destination. 
     The quality evaluation involves examining the elements that compose the travel experience and scoring typically dozens of these elements using a matrix of trip attributes (“TSM”), along with one or more travel scoring functions (“TSPs”) that evaluate the relevant itinerary data against the matrix using one or more different methodologies. The matrix may also have rules, including business rules and attribute mappings, for determining respective values and/or weightings for each of the attributes. The itinerary data may be received in near real-time, periodically, or at specific times or intervals from one or more travel distribution systems or from other external or internal data sources. The default TQS can take into account a multitude of travel product aspects, for example, data that maps to 45 or more individual trip attributes, to generate a default score. Scores can be customized by including or excluding attributes via a user interface, such as a trip quality dashboard (“TQD”). In addition, the travel scoring matrix can incorporate customized weighting schema, which attribute more weight to some attributes over others. Also, in some systems, end users, including travelers and agents, can customize the weight of each selected trip attribute, for example, using the trip quality dashboard. 
     Overview of Use of the Travel Quality Scoring Process 
     In one embodiment of the present invention, the travel-scoring process includes the following steps:
         1) A travel search is initiated via a travel distribution system. The search may be performed, for example, on-line or off-line through a travel agent.   2) A result set of travel options is returned, which provides individual travel solutions. Each travel option comprises a normalized set of elements that make up each respective travel solution.   3) The travel scoring process then evaluates each respective travel solution by examining the elements of the solution using the travel scoring matrix to generate an overall TQS for each unique itinerary.   4) A user can then invoke a TQD to customize a score to be generated by including/excluding one or more trip attributes and assigning weights to one or more attributes. The TQD can be used as well in an iterative fashion to observe the effect of different attribute and/or weighting choices on the resultant TQS.
 
In one example implementation of the TQSS, the trip scoring process evaluates 45 or more trip attributes as they relate to qualitative aspects of the travel product. Other embodiments allow for the evaluation of different items and/or a different number of items. Below is a list of travel products with a sample subset of the trip attributes associated with the respective product being evaluated against an example TSM (a detailed explanation of these samples is provided below). In the following examples, the phrase &lt;noun&gt; “itinerary” refers to a travel-product (e.g., a travel plan or travel solution) that involves the &lt;noun&gt;. Thus, an airline itinerary may refer to a possible route and transport to fly from a source to a destination. A hotel itinerary may refer to a possible reservation at a hotel. Similarly, a cruise itinerary may refer to a possible booking of a cruise package or cruise vessel.
       

     Airline itineraries trip attributes may include one or more of: (1) number of stops; (2) travel duration; (3) aircraft legroom; and (4) aircraft average age. Hotel itineraries trip attributes may include one or more of: (1) square footage of room; (2) year hotel built/renovated; (3) special event notification; and (4) on-site restaurant. Cruise itineraries trip attributes may include one or more of: (1) square footage of cabin; (2) year ship built/last renovated; (3) meal quality; and (4) number on-site restaurants. 
     Assembling and Pricing Itineraries 
     Regardless of whether a user is shopping in an online environment or offline environment, such as being physically inside of a travel agency, the data that is incorporated to generate a list of travel solutions, by in large, originate from similar upstream processes. This data may be made available to third party systems, such as InsideTrip™, by existing processes that gather and aggregate such data from source data companies such as airlines, hotel businesses, etc. These aggregation processes, often provided by firms referred to as global distribution systems (“GDS”), typically merge three types of information: (1) the confirmed existence of a valid, physical travel product, such as an airline schedule, cruise ship schedule, or hotel reservation; (2) access to a list of prices of travel products subject to fare/pricing rules, such as a $400 fare on American Airlines between Boston and Los Angeles, subject to travel only allowed on Tuesdays, during the month of January; and (3) product availability/inventory insight, such as the $400 price on American Airlines is unavailable between Boston and Los Angeles on January 12 th . 
     The above data aggregation processes are typically performed by technology firms, such as global distribution systems, whose primary function is to enable the distribution and sale of travel-related products. As a response to a user initiated query, these global distribution systems produce a standardized itinerary data record (“IDR”) containing normalized data elements for a particular travel product including, for example, price, brand, itinerary, and other relevant information pertinent to that travel selection.  FIG. 4  shows how an itinerary data record is created in the distribution and sale of airline tickets according to various embodiments of the present invention. 
     Although the techniques of the travel scoring process and the travel quality scoring system are generally applicable to any type of travel-related product, the phrases “travel,” “trip,” “travel itinerary,” “travel reservation,” or “travel schedule” are used generally to imply any type of travel-related option that one can purchase, including but not limited to airline tickets, hotel reservations, cruise packages, vessel tickets, etc. Also, although many of the examples described herein relate to airlines and airline itineraries, it will be understood that similar techniques, matrixes, and scoring processes are equally applicable to other types of travel-related products, such as hotels, vacation packages, cruise packages, etc. and to other types of transportation, including, for example, cars, trains, boats, and other modes of transport. 
     Also, although certain terms are used primarily in this document, other terms could be used interchangeably to yield equivalent embodiments and examples. For example, it is well-known that equivalent terms in the travel field and in other similar fields could be substituted for such terms as “trip,” “itinerary,” “plan,” “schedule,” etc. Also, the term “attribute” can be used interchangeably with “aspect,” “characteristic,” etc. In addition, terms may have alternate spellings which may or may not be explicitly mentioned, and all such variations of terms are intended to be included. 
     The Travel Scoring Matrix (“TSM”) and Travel Scoring Process (“TSP”) 
     In current systems, data from the IDR is typically presented to a user for his/her own interpretation and evaluation. By contrast, the travel scoring process examines elements contained in the IDR and scores these elements, as they pertain to one or more trip attributes, on a quality basis. In most cases, this involves utilizing supplemental data sources as part of the evaluation mechanism. One or more elements of an IDR may be considered, potentially in conjunction with the supplemental data, to for, each trip attribute that is evaluated for quality. For example, a trip attribute such as “Aircraft Age” may be garnered from aircraft model and airline brand elements of an IDR, in conjunction with external data such as the average aircraft age for that fleet for that airline. As a result, some elements are scored individually as well as in conjunction with other elements found within the IDR. Each trip attribute is scored, and then the scores are eventually rolled up to create one or more overall trip quality scores. 
       FIG. 5  demonstrates one example of the travel scoring matrix interaction with the itinerary data record in the evaluation of airline itineraries according to various embodiments of the present invention.  FIG. 5  shows how aircraft age is evaluated and scored using elements from an IDR, aircraft model and airline brand, as well as externally provided data. Although  FIG. 5  shows the travel scoring process evaluating only one trip quality attribute, average aircraft age, the process may, in another embodiment of the present invention, evaluate up to 45 or more trip attributes of an itinerary to produce an overall TQS. While the above examples from  FIGS. 4 and 5  illustrate the dynamics of how airline itineraries are assembled and evaluated by the travel scoring process, a similar process can be applied across multiple travel product lines, including hotel, cruise, car, vacation packages, rail, and cruises, using appropriate TSMs. Because most travel-related products are distributed in similar fashion, via global travel distribution systems, the TQSS scales across travel-related product lines. 
     Example Travel Scoring Matrix Trip Attributes for Airline Itinerary Evaluation 
     As noted previously, up to 45 or more trip attributes can be evaluated for each unique airline itinerary. Specifically, a trip attribute is an individual element of an itinerary that relates to trip quality and represents an aspect of a trip that can have material impact on the enjoyment or lack of enjoyment of a travel experience, many of the trip attributes mapping to one or more elements of an IDR. Thus, the importance of trip attributes may be subjective, as each person&#39;s enjoyment may be more highly influenced by some trip attributes more than others. An exemplary TQSS evaluates a set of default trip attributes with default weightings associated with them. 
     Table 1, provided below, details TQM contents for a airline travel product, including 12 different trip attributes currently used in a weighted scoring schema, listed first in Table 1, and additional elements that can be added at any time. In addition, in other embodiments of a TQSS, additional and/or different attributes and/or data mappings may be considered when computing evaluation scores. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 Trip Attributes Applicable to the Distribution/Sale of Airline Tickets 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                 Name of Attribute 
                 IDR Data-Key(s) 
                 External Data and/or Manipulation 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                  1) 
                 # of Stops - 
                 # of Stops 
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 intermediate stops 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                  2) 
                 Travel Duration - 
                 a. 
                 Depart times of 
                 i. 
                 Calculation of elapsed in-flight 
               
               
                   
                 total travel time of 
                   
                 all flights 
                   
                 time 
               
               
                   
                 itinerary 
                 b. 
                 Arrive times of 
                 ii. 
                 Time zone file 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 all flights 
               
               
                  3) 
                 Flight On-Time 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Flight on-time performance data 
               
               
                   
                 Performance - 
                 b. 
                 Flight # 
               
               
                   
                 historical flight on- 
                 c. 
                 Depart City 
               
               
                   
                 time performance 
                 d. 
                 Arrive City 
               
               
                  4) 
                 Security Wait Time - 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Airline to airport terminal location 
               
               
                   
                 historical queuing 
                 b. 
                 Departing 
                   
                 mapping 
               
               
                   
                 times through airport 
                   
                 Airports 
                 ii. 
                 Airport terminal to unique security 
               
               
                   
                 security 
                   
                   
                   
                 checkpoint mapping 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 iii. 
                 Airline to unique security 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 checkpoint mapping 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 iv. 
                 Security wait times data 
               
               
                  5) 
                 Connection/Layover 
                 a. 
                 Depart times of 
                 i. 
                 Calculation of elapsed in-flight 
               
               
                   
                 Time - amount of 
                   
                 all flights 
                   
                 time 
               
               
                   
                 time waiting between 
                 b. 
                 Arrive times of 
                 ii. 
                 Time zone file 
               
               
                   
                 connecting flights 
                   
                 all flights 
               
               
                  6) 
                 Routing Quality - 
                 a. 
                 Depart cities 
                 i. 
                 Airport coordinates 
               
               
                   
                 degree the routing is 
                 b. 
                 Connect cities 
                 ii. 
                 GPS Point-to-point mileage 
               
               
                   
                 out-of-the-way 
                 c. 
                 Arrival cities 
                   
                 calculation 
               
               
                  7) 
                 Lost Baggage Rank - 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Department of Transportation lost 
               
               
                   
                 historical ranking 
                   
                   
                   
                 baggage ranking file 
               
               
                   
                 of lost bags 
               
               
                  8) 
                 Airport Gate 
                 a. 
                 Airlines 
                 i. 
                 Airline to airport terminal location 
               
               
                   
                 Location - Ease of 
                 b. 
                 Depart Cities 
                   
                 mapping 
               
               
                   
                 Getting to/from 
                 c. 
                 Connect Cities 
                 ii. 
                 Intra-Airport Modes of 
               
               
                   
                 Gates 
                 d. 
                 Arrival Cities 
                   
                 Transportation 
               
               
                  9) 
                 Aircraft Legroom - 
                 a. 
                 Operating 
                 i. 
                 Airline-Aircraft legroom data 
               
               
                   
                 amount of space 
                   
                 Airline 
                 ii. 
                 Codeshare flight number 
               
               
                   
                 between seats, or 
                 b. 
                 Marketing 
                   
                 translation to operating airline 
               
               
                   
                 “seat pitch” 
                   
                 Airline 
                   
                 equipment 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Aircraft 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 10) 
                 Aircraft Age - 
                 a. 
                 Operating 
                 i. 
                 File detailing average aircraft fleet 
               
               
                   
                 average age of an 
                   
                 Airline 
                   
                 age by airline and sub-fleet 
               
               
                   
                 airline sub-fleet of 
                 b. 
                 Marketing 
               
               
                   
                 scheduled aircraft 
                   
                 Airline 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Aircraft 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 11) 
                 Aircraft Type - jet 
                 a. 
                 Aircraft model 
                 i. 
                 File classifying the aircraft model 
               
               
                   
                 or prop aircraft 
                   
                   
                   
                 as prop, regional jet, large jet, or 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 wide-body jet 
               
               
                 12) 
                 Typical Aircraft 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File with historical passenger 
               
               
                   
                 Passenger Loads - 
                 b. 
                 Depart City 
                   
                 loads by airline and month 
               
               
                   
                 historical % of seats 
                 c. 
                 Arrival City 
               
               
                   
                 filled on a route 
                 d. 
                 Date 
               
               
                 13) 
                 In-Flight Food - 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing in-flight food 
               
               
                   
                 airline policies &amp; 
                 b. 
                 Depart City 
                   
                 policies (i.e. free, buy-on-board, or 
               
               
                   
                 food quality 
                 c. 
                 Arrival City 
                   
                 none) 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 ii. 
                 Calculation of mileage 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 iii. 
                 Calculation of time in-flight 
               
               
                 14) 
                 In-Flight 
                 a. 
                 Operating 
                 i. 
                 File detailing the entertainment 
               
               
                   
                 Entertainment - 
                   
                 Airline 
                   
                 policies by airline and aircraft 
               
               
                   
                 airline policies and 
                 b. 
                 Aircraft 
                   
                 model operated by that airline 
               
               
                   
                 options 
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 15) 
                 In-Flight Power - 
                 a. 
                 Depart cities 
                 i. 
                 File detailing the availability of in- 
               
               
                   
                 extent to which 
                 b. 
                 Connect cities 
                   
                 seat power by airline and aircraft 
               
               
                   
                 power is provided 
                 c. 
                 Arrival cities 
                   
                 model operated by that airline 
               
               
                   
                 in-flight 
               
               
                 16) 
                 Aircraft Overhead 
                 a. 
                 Operating 
                 i. 
                 File detailing the cubic dimensions 
               
               
                   
                 Luggage Stowage 
                   
                 Airline 
                   
                 of each airline&#39;s sub-fleet of 
               
               
                   
                 Space - amount of 
                 b. 
                 Aircraft 
                   
                 aircraft 
               
               
                   
                 overhead space 
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 17) 
                 Airline Frequent 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Schedule of frequent flyer 
               
               
                   
                 Flyer Program 
                   
                   
                   
                 alliances and the reciprocal 
               
               
                   
                 Alliances 
                   
                   
                   
                 mileage earning/burning 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 opportunities 
               
               
                 18) 
                 Airline 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing airlines current and 
               
               
                   
                 Bankruptcy Status 
                   
                   
                   
                 historical bankruptcy status 
               
               
                   
                 &amp; History 
               
               
                 19) 
                 Airline # of Planes 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing the fleet size of each 
               
               
                   
                 in Fleet 
                   
                   
                   
                 airline 
               
               
                 20) 
                 Airline # of Daily 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing the number of daily 
               
               
                   
                 Non-stop Flights in 
                   
                   
                   
                 non-stop flights in a given market 
               
               
                   
                 a Given Market 
                   
                   
                   
                 for each airline 
               
               
                 21) 
                 Airline # of 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing the number of 
               
               
                   
                 Alliance Partners 
                   
                   
                   
                 alliance partners for each airline 
               
               
                 22) 
                 Airline Airfare 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
               
               
                   
                 Rules - flexibility 
                 b. 
                 Airfare rules 
               
               
                   
                 of airline airfare 
               
               
                   
                 rules 
               
               
                 23) 
                 Airline Airfare 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing airfare change 
               
               
                   
                 Change Policies - 
                   
                   
                   
                 policies by airline 
               
               
                   
                 flexibility of airline 
               
               
                   
                 change rules 
               
               
                 24) 
                 Airline Airfare 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing airfare refund 
               
               
                   
                 Refund Policies - 
                   
                   
                   
                 policies by airline 
               
               
                   
                 flexibility of airline 
               
               
                   
                 refund policies 
               
               
                 25) 
                 Airline Customer 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing customer service 
               
               
                   
                 Service Ranking - 
                   
                   
                   
                 complaints by airline 
               
               
                   
                 historical airline 
               
               
                   
                 customer complaints 
               
               
                 26) 
                 Airline Airport 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing overall on-time 
               
               
                   
                 On-time 
                   
                   
                   
                 performance by airline 
               
               
                   
                 Performance - 
               
               
                   
                 historical airport 
               
               
                   
                 data 
               
               
                 27) 
                 Airline Passenger 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing airline passenger 
               
               
                   
                 Bumping Rate - 
                   
                   
                   
                 bumping (denied boarding) rate 
               
               
                   
                 historical rate airline 
               
               
                   
                 denies boarding of 
               
               
                   
                 ticketed passengers 
               
               
                 28) 
                 Multi-carrier 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
               
               
                   
                 Itinerary Quality - 
                 b. 
                 Connection 
               
               
                   
                 ease of flying 
                   
                 City 
               
               
                   
                 multiple airlines in a 
               
               
                   
                 single itinerary 
               
               
                 29) 
                 Multi-airport 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
               
               
                   
                 Itinerary Quality - 
                 b. 
                 Departing 
               
               
                   
                 ease of using 
                   
                 Airport 
               
               
                   
                 different 
                 c. 
                 Connecting 
               
               
                   
                 depart/arrive 
                   
                 Airport 
               
               
                   
                 airports in a single 
                 d. 
                 Arrival Airport 
               
               
                   
                 itinerary 
               
               
                 30) 
                 Airline Hub Delays - 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 File detailing airline hub cities 
               
               
                   
                 historical flight 
                 b. 
                 Departing 
                   
                 delays 
               
               
                   
                 delays of an airline 
                   
                 Airport 
               
               
                   
                 at one its respective 
                 c. 
                 Connecting 
               
               
                   
                 hub cities 
                   
                 Airport 
               
               
                   
                   
                 d. 
                 Arrival Airport 
               
               
                 31) 
                 Airfare Historical 
                 a. 
                 Airfare 
                 i. 
                 File detailing historical airfare 
               
               
                   
                 Price Comparison - 
                   
                   
                   
                 prices by airline and by origin and 
               
               
                   
                 historical view of 
                   
                   
                   
                 destination city pair 
               
               
                   
                 average prices paid 
               
               
                 32) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Aircraft Type 
                 b. 
                 Aircraft 
                   
                 feedback regarding aircraft type 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 33) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Airline Comments 
                   
                   
                   
                 feedback regarding airline 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 opinions 
               
               
                 34) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airlines 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Airport &amp; Gate 
                 b. 
                 Depart Cities 
                   
                 feedback regarding airport &amp; gate 
               
               
                   
                 Location 
                 c. 
                 Connect Cities 
                   
                 locations 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
                 d. 
                 Arrival Cities 
               
               
                 35) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Depart Cities 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Route Comments 
                 b. 
                 Connect Cities 
                   
                 feedback regarding aircraft routing 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Arrival Cities 
               
               
                 36) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Frequent Flyer 
                   
                   
                   
                 feedback regarding airline frequent 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
                   
                   
                   
                 flyer programs 
               
               
                 37) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Food Policies &amp; 
                 b. 
                 Aircraft 
                   
                 feedback regarding airline food 
               
               
                   
                 Quality Comments 
                   
                 Equipment 
                   
                 policies and quality 
               
               
                 38) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 In-Flight 
                 b. 
                 Aircraft 
                   
                 feedback regarding airline in-flight 
               
               
                   
                 Entertainment 
                   
                 Equipment 
                   
                 entertainment 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
               
               
                 39) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Security Wait 
                 b. 
                 Departing 
                   
                 feedback regarding security wait 
               
               
                   
                 Time Comments 
                   
                 Airports 
                   
                 times 
               
               
                 40) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Depart times of 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Connection/ 
                   
                 all flights 
                   
                 feedback regarding 
               
               
                   
                 Layover Time 
                 b. 
                 Arrive times of 
                   
                 connection/layover time 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 all flights 
               
               
                 41) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Lost Baggage 
                   
                   
                   
                 feedback regarding lost baggage 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
               
               
                 42) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Operating 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Aircraft Legroom 
                   
                 Airline 
                   
                 feedback regarding aircraft 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
                 b. 
                 Marketing 
                   
                 legroom 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Airline 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Aircraft 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 43) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Operating 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Aircraft Average 
                   
                 Airline 
                   
                 feedback regarding aircraft 
               
               
                   
                 Age Comments 
                 b. 
                 Marketing 
                   
                 average age 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Airline 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Aircraft 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Equipment 
               
               
                 44) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Typical Aircraft 
                 b. 
                 Depart City 
                   
                 feedback regarding typical aircraft 
               
               
                   
                 Passenger Loads 
                 c. 
                 Arrival City 
                   
                 passenger loads 
               
               
                   
                 Comments 
                 d. 
                 Date 
               
               
                 45) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Airline 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Flight Solution 
                 b. 
                 Departing 
                   
                 feedback regarding most 
               
               
                   
                 Popularity Rank 
                   
                 Airport 
                   
                 commonly clicked on flight results 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Arrival Airport 
               
               
                 46) 
                 User-Generated: 
                 a. 
                 Other Data 
                 i. 
                 Database of user-generated 
               
               
                   
                 Other Comments 
                   
                   
                   
                 feedback regarding other issues 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Travel Scoring Process: Methodologies for Scoring Using a TQM 
     Within the travel scoring process, at least two weighted methodologies can be used to generate the TQS from the data and the TQM: (1) a build-up approach; and (2) a penalty or decrement approach. Using the build-up approach, each attribute contributes some amount of points based upon its importance weighting and the value of the attribute in the data being examined. Using the penalty approach, points are taken away based upon the importance weighting and value of the attribute in the data being examined. 
     Steps employed in an exemplary Build-Up Approach include:
         a. Each trip attribute is assigned a weighted value of perceived “importance.”   b. Each trip attribute is assigned a maximum possible achievable point value (considered the mathematical denominator for that attribute).   c. Two other tiered point values are established based upon trip quality.   d. Thus, each attribute can be assigned one of three point values (considered the mathematical numerators):
           i. Best Quality: full point value   ii. Moderate Quality: partial point value   iii. Low Quality: little or no assigned point value   
           e. The attributes may be grouped together in summary categories such as Speed, Comfort, and Ease.   f. The numerators and denominators are each summed up to create a composite score representing the number of earned points divided by the maximum achievable points. Thus, the quotient represents the percentage of achieved points and is normalized to a value out of 100%.   g. The process accordingly may generate:
           i. a score for each trip attribute;   ii. a score for each of the summary categories;   iii. an overall score for all trip attributes.   
           h. In addition, summary trip quality scores may be created on a:
           i. directional basis, e.g., an outbound TQS and a return TQS for each attribute, each summary category, and the all of the trip attributes combined; and   ii. an overall TQS for the complete trip (e.g., multiple directions).
 
Note that, in different embodiments, a different number of values, or tiers, may be established for one or more trip attributes in the TQM. In addition, directional scores may be computed on a per “travel leg” basis, for example, where connecting airline flights are relevant.
   
               

     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 TQS Option 1: TQM “Build-Up” Methodology 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                 Name of Attribute 
                 Outcome/Result 
                 Point Value 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                  1) 
                 # of Stops 
                 a. 
                 Non-stop 
                 600 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 1-stop 
                 400 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 2+ stops 
                 300 
               
               
                  2) 
                 Travel Duration 
                 a. 
                 Fastest 15% of trips 
                 100 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Fastest 15-50% of trips 
                 50 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Slowest 50% of trips 
                 0 
               
               
                  3) 
                 Flight On-Time 
                 a. 
                 Greater than 80% on-time 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                 Performance 
                 b. 
                 Between 50% and 80% on-time 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Less than 50% on-time 
                 0 
               
               
                  4) 
                 Security Wait 
                 a. 
                 Less than 5 minute wait time 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                 Times 
                 b. 
                 Between 5 and 12 minutes wait 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 time 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 12 minutes wait time 
                 0 
               
               
                  5) 
                 Connection/Layover 
                 a. 
                 Between 45 and 90 minutes 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                 Time (Domestic) 
                 b. 
                 Less than 45 and between 90 and 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 180 minutes 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 180 minutes 
                 0 
               
               
                  5) 
                 Connection/Layover 
                 a. 
                 Between 90 and 150 minutes 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                 Time 
                 b. 
                 Less than 90 minutes and 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                 (International) 
                   
                 between 150 minutes and 180 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 minutes 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 180 minutes 
                 0 
               
               
                  6) 
                 Routing Quality - 
                 a. 
                 Route traveled miles of 110% or 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                 degree the routing 
                   
                 less of non-stop 
               
               
                   
                 is out-of-the-way 
                 b. 
                 Route traveled miles of 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 between 110% and 125% of non- 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 stop 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Route traveled miles of greater 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 than 125% of non-stop 
               
               
                  7) 
                 Lost Baggage Rank 
                 a. 
                 Airline ranking within top 3 of 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 20 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Airline ranking between 4 and 6 
                 20 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Airline ranking greater than 6 
                 0 
               
               
                  8) 
                 Airport Gate 
                 a. 
                 Departure Gate: Walk or Ride 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                 Location &amp; Ease of 
                 b. 
                 Departure Gate: Ride 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Getting to/from 
                 c. 
                 Connecting Gate: Walk or Ride 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                 Gates 
                 d. 
                 Connecting Gate: Ride 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 e. 
                 Arrival Gate: Walk or Ride 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                 f. 
                 Arrival Gate: Ride 
                 0 
               
               
                  9) 
                 Aircraft Legroom 
                 a. 
                 Seat pitch 32.5″ or greater 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Seat pitch between 31″ and 32.5″ 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Seat pitch less than 31″ 
                 0 
               
               
                 10) 
                 Average Aircraft 
                 a. 
                 Avg. age less than 5 years 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                 Age by Airline 
                 b. 
                 Avg. age between 5 and 12 years 
                 20 
               
               
                   
                 Sub-fleet 
                 c. 
                 Avg. age greater than 12 years 
                 0 
               
               
                 11) 
                 Aircraft Type 
                 a. 
                 Large Jet 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Regional Jet 
                 20 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Non-Jet 
                 0 
               
               
                 12) 
                 Typical Aircraft 
                 a. 
                 Less than 60% full 
                 60 
               
               
                   
                 Passenger Loads 
                 b. 
                 Between 60 and 80% full 
                 30 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 80% full 
                 0 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Steps employed in an exemplary penalty approach include:
         a. Each trip attribute is assigned a weighted value of perceived “importance.”   b. All individual travel itineraries start out at a perfect score of ‘100’.   c. For each attribute, the best or optimal trip quality is assigned a value of ‘0’   d. Two other tiered point values (penalties) are established based upon trip quality.   e. Thus, each attribute can be assigned one of three point values:
           i. Best Quality: no point penalty or ‘0’   ii. Moderate Quality: partial point penalty   iii. Low Quality: full point penalty   
           f. The attributes may be grouped together in summary categories such as Speed, Comfort, and Ease.   i. All trip attributes are scored and each point value successively decremented (or not) against the overall score from highest possible achievable score of ‘100’ to arrive at a trip quality score.   j. The process accordingly may generate:
           i. a score for each trip attribute;   ii. a score for each of the summary categories;   iii. an overall score for all trip attributes.   
           g. In addition, summary trip quality scores may be created on a:
           i. directional basis, e.g., an outbound TQS and a return TQS for each attribute, each summary category, and the all of the trip attributes combined; and   ii. an overall TQS for the complete trip (e.g., multiple directions).
 
Note that, in different embodiments, a different number of values, tiers, may be established for one or more trip attributes in the TQM. In addition, directional scores may be computed on a per “travel leg” basis, for example, where connecting airline flights are relevant.
   
               

     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 TQS Option 2: TQM “Decrement” Methodology 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                 Name of Attribute 
                 Outcome/Result 
                 Point Value 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                  1) 
                 # of Stops 
                 a. 
                 Non-stop 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 1-stop 
                 10 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 2+ stops 
                 20 
               
               
                  2) 
                 Travel Duration 
                 a. 
                 Fastest 15% of trips 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Fastest 15-50% of trips 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Slowest 50% of trips 
                 2 
               
               
                  3) 
                 Flight On-Time 
                 a. 
                 Greater than 80% on-time 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Performance 
                 b. 
                 Between 50% and 80% on-time 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Less than 50% on-time 
                 2 
               
               
                  4) 
                 Security Wait Times 
                 a. 
                 Less than 5 minute wait time 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Between 5 and 12 minutes wait 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 time 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 12 minutes wait 
                 2 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 time 
               
               
                  5) 
                 Connection/Layover 
                 a. 
                 Between 45 and 90 minutes 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Time (Domestic) 
                 b. 
                 Less than 45 and between 90 and 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 180 minutes 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 180 minutes 
                 2 
               
               
                  5) 
                 Connection/Layover 
                 a. 
                 Between 90 and 150 minutes 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Time 
                 b. 
                 Less than 90 minutes and 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                 (International) 
                   
                 between 150 minutes and 180 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 minutes 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 180 minutes 
                 2 
               
               
                  6) 
                 Routing Quality - 
                 a. 
                 Route traveled miles of 110% or 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 degree the routing 
                   
                 less of non-stop 
               
               
                   
                 is out-of-the-way 
                 b. 
                 Route traveled miles of 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 between 110% and 125% of non- 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 stop 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Route traveled miles of greater 
                 2 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 than 125% of non-stop 
               
               
                  7) 
                 Lost Baggage Rank 
                 a. 
                 Airline ranking within top 3 of 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 20 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Airline ranking between 4 and 6 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Airline ranking greater than 6 
                 2 
               
               
                  8) 
                 Airport Gate 
                 a. 
                 Departure Gate: Walk or Ride 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Location &amp; Ease of 
                 b. 
                 Departure Gate: Ride 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                 Getting to/from 
                 c. 
                 Connecting Gate: Walk or Ride 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Gates 
                 d. 
                 Connecting Gate: Ride 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                 e. 
                 Arrival Gate: Walk or Ride 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 f. 
                 Arrival Gate: Ride 
                 1 
               
               
                  9) 
                 Aircraft Legroom 
                 a. 
                 Seat pitch 32.5″ or greater 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Seat pitch between 31″ and 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 32.5″ 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Seat pitch less than 31″ 
                 2 
               
               
                 10) 
                 Average Aircraft 
                 a. 
                 Avg. age less than 5 years 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Age by Airline Sub- 
                 b. 
                 Avg. age between 5 and 12 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                 fleet 
                   
                 years 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Avg. age greater than 12 years 
                 2 
               
               
                 11) 
                 Aircraft Type 
                 a. 
                 Large Jet 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 b. 
                 Regional Jet 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Non-Jet 
                 2 
               
               
                 12) 
                 Typical Aircraft 
                 a. 
                 Less than 60% full 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Passenger Loads 
                 b. 
                 Between 60 and 80% full 
                 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                 c. 
                 Greater than 80% full 
                 2 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Example and Comparison Using Build-Up and Decrement Scoring Methodologies 
     A typical travel distribution system can return up to 500 or more unique itineraries in response to a query. An example presented below illustrates how the TQSS develops travel quality scores for a unique itinerary on both a directional basis and a round-trip basis. In addition, this single itinerary is evaluated using both the build-up and decrement TSM methodologies.
         Example Itinerary: Seattle (SEA) to Orlando (MCO) round-trip on American Airlines (AA), leaving on Dec. 8, 2007 and returning on Dec. 14, 2007. The specific flights being evaluated include AA departing flights #1212 (SEA to DFW) connecting to AA flight #1734 (DFWMCO) and AA returning flights #897 (MCO to DFW) connecting to AA flight #1585 (DFWSEA).
 
Table 4, provided below, presents a summary of the trip quality scores generated on both a directional and overall basis. The build-up approach generates an overall TQS of 62%, with departure and return directions generating respective scores of 60% and 64%. In turn, the decrement approach generates an overall TQS of 78%, with departure and return directions generating respective scores of 77% and 79%. Note that each TQS may be expressed as a percentage, a numeric value, or by some other indicator such as a graphic, symbol, icon, color, shape, texture, etc.
       

     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 4 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 TQS Comparison 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Trip Quality Score 
                 BUILD-UP 
                 DECREMENT 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 Departure Direction 
                 60% 
                 77% 
               
               
                   
                 Return Direction 
                 64% 
                 79% 
               
               
                   
                 Overall Trip Quality 
                 62% 
                 78% 
               
               
                   
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Tables 5 and 6 below illustrate the process for evaluating the example data to derive detailed scoring results for directional itineraries as well as the different scoring results that are generated using the build-up and decrement methodologies. 
     Departure Direction Scoring: 
     Seattle (SEA) to Orlando (MCO) on American Airlines (AA) with a connection in Dallas (DFW). The specific itinerary involves AA flight #1212 (SEA to DFW) connecting to AA flight #1734 (DFW to MCO) departing on Dec. 8, 2007. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 5 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 TQS Results for Departure-Direction Itinerary 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                 Departure Direction Scoring: 
                 BUILD-UP 
                 DECREMENT 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Seattle (SEA) to Orlando (MCO) 
                 Score 
                 Best Possible 
                 Score 
                 Best Possible 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Attribute 
                 IDR Value(s) 
                 External Data 
                 Value 
                 Score Value 
                 Value 
                 Score Value 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 1) 
                 # of Stops 
                 1 stop flight 
                   
                 400 
                 600 
                 −10 
                 0 
               
               
                 2) 
                 Travel Duration 
                 7 hrs, 15 min 
                 Comparison to fastest 
                 50 
                 100 
                 −1 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 flights in results set 
               
               
                 3) 
                 Flight On-Time 
                 AA Flight #1212 
                 On-time: 72% 
                 42 
                 60 
                 −1 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Performance 1   
                 AA Flight #1734 
                 On-time: 85% 
               
               
                 4) 
                 Security Wait Times 
                 AA, SEA airport 
                 15 minute avg 
                 0 
                 60 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                 5) 
                 Connection/Layover Time 
                 1 hour, 25 min 
                   
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 (Domestic) 
               
               
                 6) 
                 Routing Quality - degree 
                 Route: SEA-DFW-MCO 
                 Total Routed miles: 
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 the routing is out-of-the-way 
                   
                 104% of nonstop 
               
               
                 7) 
                 Lost Baggage Rank 
                 AA 
                 Ranking: 12 th  out of 20 
                 0 
                 30 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                 8) 
                 Airport Gate Location &amp; East 
                 Depart: SEA 
                 SEA: Walk to Gate 
                 30 
                 90 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 of Getting to/from Gates 
                 Connect: DFW 
                 DFW: Train to Gate 
               
               
                   
                   
                 Arrive: MCO 
                 MCO: Train to Term. 
               
               
                 9) 
                 Aircraft Legroom 
                 AA Flight #1212: B757 
                 AA B757: 32″ seat pitch 
                 30 
                 60 
                 −1 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 AA Flight #1734: B757 
               
               
                 10) 
                 Average Aircraft 
                 AA Flight #1212: B757 
                 AA B757: 12.25 yrs 
                 0 
                 30 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Age by Airline Sub-fleet 
                 AA Flight #1734: B757 
                 avg age 
               
               
                 11) 
                 Aircraft Type 
                 AA Flight #1212: B757 
                 B757: Jet 
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 AA Flight #1734: B757 
               
               
                 12) 
                 Typical Aircraft 
                 AA Flight #1212: B757 
                 AA Flight #1212: 85% Full 
                 12 
                 30 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Passenger Loads 1   
                 AA Flight #1734: B757 
                 AA Flight #1734: 92% Full 
                   
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Total Points 
                 744 
                 1240 
                 77 
                 100 
               
               
                 Directional Trip Quality Score (TQS): 
                 60.0% 
                 100.0% 
                 77.0% 
                 100.0% 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   1 Score weighted by transported miles 
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Return Direction Scoring: 
     Orlando (MCO) to Seattle (SEA) on American Airlines (AA) with a connection in Dallas (DFW). The specific itinerary involves AA flight #897 (MCO to DFW) connecting to AA flight #1585 (DFW to SEA) departing on Dec. 14, 2007. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 6 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 TQS Results for Return-Direction Itinerary 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                 Return Direction Scoring: 
                 BUILD-UP 
                 DECREMENT 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Orlando (MCO) to Seattle (SEA) 
                 Score 
                 Best Possible 
                 Score 
                 Best Possible 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Attribute 
                 IDR Value(s) 
                 External Data 
                 Value 
                 Score Value 
                 Value 
                 Score Value 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 1) 
                 # of Stops 
                 1 stop flight 
                   
                 400 
                 600 
                 −10 
                 0 
               
               
                 2) 
                 Travel Duration 
                 8 hrs, 20 min 
                 Comparison to fastest 
                 50 
                 100 
                 −1 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 flights in results set 
               
               
                 3) 
                 Flight On-Time 
                 AA Flight #897 
                 On-time: 76% 
                 30 
                 60 
                 −1 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Performance 1   
                 AA Flight #1585 
                 On-time: 68% 
               
               
                 4) 
                 Security Wait Times 
                 AA, MCO airport 
                 1 minute avg 
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                 5) 
                 Connection/Layover Time 
                 1 hour, 10 min 
                   
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 (Domestic) 
               
               
                 6) 
                 Routing Quality—degree 
                 Route: MCO-DFW-SEA 
                 Total Routed miles: 
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 the routing is out-of-the-way 
                   
                 104% of nonstop 
               
               
                 7) 
                 Lost Baggage Rank 
                 AA 
                 Ranking: 12 th  out of 20 
                 0 
                 30 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                 8) 
                 Airport Gate Location 
                 Depart: MCO 
                 MCO: Train to Gate 
                 30 
                 90 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 &amp; East of Getting 
                 Connect: DFW 
                 DFW: Train to Gate 
               
               
                   
                 to/from Gates 
                 Arrive: SEA 
                 SEA: Walk to Term. 
               
               
                 9) 
                 Aircraft Legroom 
                 AA Flight #897: B757 
                 32″ seat pitch 
                 30 
                 60 
                 −1 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 AA Flight #1585: B757 
               
               
                 10) 
                 Average Aircraft 
                 AA Flight #897: B757 
                 AA B757: 12.25 yrs 
                 0 
                 30 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Age by Airline Sub-fleet 
                 AA Flight #1585: B757 
                 avg age 
               
               
                 11) 
                 Aircraft Type 
                 AA Flight #897: B757 
                 AA B757: Jet 
                 60 
                 60 
                 0 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 AA Flight #1585: B757 
               
               
                 12) 
                 Typical Aircraft 
                 AA Flight #897: 
                 AA Flight #897: 88% Full 
                 12 
                 30 
                 −2 
                 0 
               
               
                   
                 Passenger Loads 1   
                 AA Flight #1585: 
                 AA Flight #1585: 85% Full 
                   
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Total Points 
                 792 
                 1240 
                 79 
                 100 
               
               
                 Directional Trip Quality Score (TQS): 
                 63.9% 
                 100.0% 
                 79.0% 
                 100.0% 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     Manipulation of the Travel Scoring Matrix (“TSM”) and Trip Quality Score (“TQS”) 
     Although any suitable user interface may be using to control and customize the TSM attributes, rules, weights, etc, an example TQSS provides a trip quality dashboard (“TQD”) to support the customization of flight itinerary quality metrics based upon user interaction with the trip attributes. A default TSM, such as generated for the first 12 attributes in Table 1, employs 12 trip attributes that relate to quality; however, by utilizing the TQD, the user can isolate only those elements deemed important for his/her given trip. By selecting/deselecting one or more attributes, the user can calculate a customized score, which takes into account only those attributes tailored for that user. In addition to selecting/deselecting attributes, the user can also create a customized weighting for one or more of the attributes.  FIG. 6  illustrates an example interface of an example trip quality dashboard according to various embodiments of the present invention. 
     When the user selects various trip attributes and weights, the TQSS automatically makes sure that no less and no more than 100% total weights are allocated. In system environments that combine some customization with default values, it is conceivable the TQSS may allocate less than 100%, augmenting the final score with its own trip attributes for the remainder, or, alternatively, may allocate a full 100%, which is, in turn, weighted proportionally when other default attributes are also incorporated. Other permutations are possible. 
     Normalized Itinerary Data Record Database Schema 
     The ability to evaluate and score the data found within an IDR is predicated on a flexible relational database schema. The TQSS data platform is normalized such that it can ingest IDRs from virtually any data source that contains the relevant data-keys as inputs.  FIG. 7  illustrates a relational database structure for use with the TSMs and travel scoring processes according to on embodiment of the present invention. It will be understood that other equivalent data structures for storing relational data, and other arrangements of data, can be similarly supported. In addition, policies for incomplete and/or missing data can also be employed. 
     INSIDETRIP™ as an Example Airline Travel Product Solution 
     The technology of the InsideTrip™ TQSS can be made available to users and third party systems in multiple forms. The TQSS has been architected to create a flexible data sharing platform with other travel-related applications. The TQSS can share data, TQMs, and methods, including methods accessed through application programming interfaces, for manipulating them, TQM schema, access to its evaluation and scoring engine for scoring externally provided trip attribute data, etc. In addition, a portion of or the entire TQSS can be embedded in other applications for providing travel-related solutions, which include quality measurements. 
     Embodiments of the present invention may be deployed in consumer-facing travel shopping web sites, or client applications. User steps may include, for example: (1) a search for airfare; (2) viewing of prices and respective TQSs; (3) tailoring TQS using the TQD; and (4) other aspects of the trip quality presentations.  FIGS. 8-11  illustrate user steps in evaluating travel options according to one embodiment of the present invention. 
     In some embodiments, a user may be able to purchase travel-related products, such as an airline ticket, at the time the search results are presented, or at other opportunities. For example, a user can select one of the “Buy Now” control buttons for the Seattle to Baltimore itinerary to purchase a ticket for one of the travel options shown in  FIGS. 9-10 . In this manner, the user can decide on, and immediately purchase, an option makes sense, taking into account the quality of the respective itinerary at the same time as price. Note that an interface for customizing weightings for one or more trip attributes can be incorporated such as the interface shown in  FIG. 6 . 
     In addition to the trip quality scores supplementing the search results on the right hand side of  FIGS. 9 and 10 , graphical indicators of the summary categories of trip attributes can also be presented and used to display additional quality-related information about the underlying travel itinerary and various travel solutions. For example,  FIG. 11  illustrates an itinerary having an interactive visual display, or flight bar, for each leg of the itinerary for each individual travel solution. In some embodiments, four aspects of the visual representation promote easy comparison and evaluation of itineraries, including:
         1) Visual exposure of all events, including flights and layovers, contained with a given itinerary. Layovers are marked with holes or gaps in the flight bars. Also, mouse-overs or other types of interactive input selection allow for further flight information to be disclosed. For example, when a user hovers an input device over a connection graphic, verbiage is displayed, such as “connection in Phoenix-Sky Harbor Airport for 2 hrs and 28 min,” providing further insight into the connection. In addition, the display may be augmented by audio or video.   2) The scheduled elapsed time of the itinerary is depicted using a bar chart to illustrate overall elapsed travel time. The starting point (time zero) of the chart represents the initial departure of a given flight and all itineraries start at this same visual reference point. The scaling process of the flight schedules to create a visual snapshot can utilize at least two methodologies:
           a. In an application with finite visual space, the length of each bar may be scaled relative to the longest directional itinerary found within the flight results set generated by a global distribution system.   b. Alternatively, the length of a bar may be scaled to a fixed time horizon. For example, one inch could equal 1 hour of flight time and thus the length of the bar relates to the number of travel hours of the itinerary being evaluated.   
           3) Vertical display of “same direction,” or departure-and-return-segment, itineraries.   4) Horizontal display of round-trip, or departure-and-return-segment, itineraries.       

     Embodiments of the present invention may be deployed in other ways.  FIG. 12  illustrates licensing of the travel scoring matrix and travel scoring process to third parties for use in their applications according to on embodiment of the present invention.  FIG. 13  illustrates a private/white label of consumer-facing travel shopping web site by embedding a portion or entire TQSS into a third party application to provide travel functionality according to on embodiment of the present invention. Other deployments and possible combinations are also possible. 
     Addition Details Concerning the Present Invention 
     Embodiments described herein provide enhanced computer- and network-based methods, techniques, and systems for the near-real time assessment of the quality of one or more travel-related products. Example embodiments provide a Travel Quality Scoring System (“TQSS”), which enables users to evaluate, score, and ultimately assess the relative quality of one travel-related product option over another, in order to make reasoned decisions. For example, using an example TQSS, attributes that contribute to a measure of quality of an airline itinerary can be evaluated and scored in near-real time. The user can then purchase the travel products associated with the itinerary that most reflects a quality fit that the user seeks. For example, a travel itinerary that uses airline flight have no stops (no connecting flights), arriving generally on-time, and having newer planes with extra leg room may receive a higher quality score than one that uses a flight having a single stop, arriving only 80% on-time. 
     In some embodiments, an example TQSS employs evaluation and scoring techniques to derive an overall score for a travel-related product, referred to as a Trip Quality Score (“TQS”), which indicates a measure of quality for that trip. In some instances, a TQS may be derived for one or more portions of a travel itinerary as well as combined into an overall score. For example, separate TQS measures may be determined for each direction of air travel, or each hotel reserved for a trip. A Trip Quality Score is calculated based upon rules and data stored in a Trip Quality Matrix (“TQM”), which specifies a weighted combination of variety of trip attributes that are in turn derived from data that can be ingested from a travel distribution system, such as one that generates itinerary data records, typically in combination with external data. The matrix defines how data ingested from a particular itinerary data record will be combined and evaluated against a set of defined, and potentially weighted, attributes. In some embodiments, certain trip attributes are weighted more heavily in their importance to an overall quality assessment. In other embodiments, one or more of the attributes are weighted the same. In addition, in some embodiments, the TQSS allows users to customize, for example using a graphical interactive user interface, which attributes will be examined in determining the TQS, and the relative weight of each such selected attribute. 
       FIG. 14  is an example block diagram of use of a Travel Quality Scoring System to provide quality measurements of travel-related products. In  FIG. 14 , itinerary data records  1401  are received from one or more sources of travel-related data, for example hotel room information, flight information, vessel specifications, etc. and forwarded, along with external data  1402  to the TQSS  1403 . Internal data may also be incorporated. The TQSS  1403  processed the received and determined data, evaluating it against the rules and mappings specified by a travel quality matrix to generate one or more Trip Quality Score(s)  1404 . 
     In one example embodiment, the Travel Quality Scoring System comprises one or more functional components/modules that work together to provide near real-time quality assessment of one or more travel-related products.  FIG. 15  is an example block diagram of example components of a Travel Quality Scoring System. These components may be implemented in software or hardware or a combination of both. For example, a typical TQSS  1500  may comprise an itinerary data record processing component  1501 , an external, or other, data processing component  1502 , customized/dashboard  1503 , an evaluation and scoring engine  1504 , one of more data repositories  1505  and  1506 , and an application programming interface (“API”)  1507  for accessing particular components and/or data produced by the system. The itinerary data record processing component  1501  processes data, typically received from a travel distribution system, to and groups the data according to the trip attributes defined by a travel quality matrix. The external, or other, data processing component  1502  receives and processes data, such as from other databases, such as information pertaining to mechanical records, fleet data, etc. The customized/dashboard  1503  presents tools for allowing a user to tailor the attributes that contribute to a TQS. The evaluation and scoring engine  1504  examines the received and otherwise determined data from internal data repositories, for example, trip quality historical data stored in repository  1506 , in accordance with one of the travel quality matrixes, stored, for example data repository  1505 . 
     Example embodiments described herein provide applications, tools, data structures and other support to implement a Travel Quality Scoring System to be used for accessing quality of travel-related products. In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth, such as data formats, steps, and sequences, etc., in order to provide a thorough understanding of the described techniques. The embodiments described also can be practiced without some of the specific details described herein, or with other specific details, such as changes with respect to the ordering of the sequences, different sequences, etc. Thus, the scope of the techniques and/or functions described are not limited by the particular order, selection, or decomposition of steps described with reference to any particular Figure. 
     In an example embodiment related to air travel, the TQM specifies a default of set of trip attributes, which related to comfort associated with air travel, and the TQSS produces Travel Quality Scores that rate the quality of an air travel itinerary. A detailed description of an example TQSS, called InsideTrip™ follows. 
       FIG. 16  is an example block diagram of an example computing system that may be used to practice embodiments of a Travel Quality Scoring System described herein. Note that a general purpose or a special purpose computing system may be used to implement a “TQSS.” Further, the TQSS may be implemented in software, hardware, firmware, or in some combination to achieve the capabilities described herein. 
     The computing system  1600  may comprise one or more sever and/or client computing systems and may span distributed locations. In addition, each block shown may represent one or more such blocks as appropriate to a specific embodiment or may be combined with other blocks. Moreover, the various blocks of the Travel Quality Scoring System  1610  may physically reside on one or more machines, which use standard (e.g., TCP/IP) or proprietary interprocess communication mechanisms to communicate with each other. 
     In the embodiment shown, computer system  1600  comprises a computer memory (“memory”)  1601 , a display  1602 , one or more Central Processing Units (“CPU”)  1603 , Input/Output devices  1604  (e.g., keyboard, mouse, CRT or LCD display, etc.), other computer-readable media  1605 , and network connections  1606 . The TQSS  1610  is shown residing in memory  1601 . In other embodiments, some portion of the contents, some of, or all of the components of the TQSS  1610  may be stored on or transmitted over the other computer-readable media  1605 . The components of the TQSS  1610  preferably execute on one or more CPUs  1603  and manage the generation and use of travel quality scores, as described herein. Other code or programs  1630  and potentially other data repositories, such as data repository  1606 , also reside in the memory  1610 , and preferably execute on one or more CPUs  1603 . Of note, one or more of the components in  FIG. 16  may not be present in any specific implementation. For example, some embodiments embedded in other software may not provide means for user input or display. 
     In a typical embodiment, the TQSS  1610  includes one or more itinerary data processors  1611 , one or more external data processors  1612 , and a TQS Evaluation and Scoring Engine  1613 , user interface support  1614 , and a TQSS API  217 . In at least some embodiments, the data processing portions  1611  and  1612  are provided external to the TQSS and are available, potentially, over one or more networks  1650 . Other and/or different modules may be implemented. In addition, the TQSS may interact via a network  1650  with one or more itinerary data providers  1665  that provide itinerary data to process, one or more client computing systems or other application programs  1660  (e.g., that use results computed by the TQSS  1610 ), and/or one or more third-party external data records providers  1655 , such as purveyors of information used in the historical data in data repository  1616 . Also, of note, the historical data in data repository  1616  may be provided external to the TQSS as well, for example in a travel knowledge base accessible over one or more networks  1650 . 
     In an example embodiment, components/modules of the TQSS  1610  are implemented using standard programming techniques. However, a range of programming languages known in the art may be employed for implementing such example embodiments, including representative implementations of various programming language paradigms, including but not limited to, object-oriented (e.g., Java, C++, C#, Smalltalk, etc.), functional (e.g., ML, Lisp, Scheme, etc.), procedural (e.g., C, Pascal, Ada, Modula, etc.), scripting (e.g., Perl, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, VBScript, etc.), declarative (e.g., SQL, Prolog, etc.), etc. 
     The embodiments described above use well-known or proprietary synchronous or asynchronous client-server computing techniques. However, the various components may be implemented using more monolithic programming techniques as well, for example, as an executable running on a single CPU computer system, or alternately decomposed using a variety of structuring techniques known in the art, including but not limited to, multiprogramming, multithreading, client-server, or peer-to-peer, running on one or more computer systems each having one or more CPUs. Some embodiments are illustrated as executing concurrently and asynchronously and communicating using message passing techniques. Equivalent synchronous embodiments are also supported by a TQSS implementation. 
     In addition, programming interfaces to the data stored as part of the TQSS  1610  (e.g., in the data repositories  1615  and  1616 ) can be available by standard means such as through C, C++, C#, and Java APIs; libraries for accessing files, databases, or other data repositories; through scripting languages such as XML; or through Web servers, FTP servers, or other types of servers providing access to stored data. The components  1615  and  1616  may be implemented as one or more database systems, file systems, or any other method known in the art for storing such information, or any combination of the above, including implementation using distributed computing techniques. In addition, the TSM rules may be implemented as stored procedures, or methods attached to trip attribute “objects,” although other techniques are equally effective. 
     Also the example TQSS  1610  may be implemented in a distributed environment comprising multiple, even heterogeneous, computer systems and networks. For example, in one embodiment, the itinerary data processing  1611 , the evaluation and scoring engine  1613 , and the TQM data repository  1615  are all located in physically different computer systems. In another embodiment, various modules of the TQSS  1610  are hosted each on a separate server machine and may be remotely located from the tables which are stored in the data repositories  1615  and  1616 . Also, one or more of the modules may themselves be distributed, pooled or otherwise grouped, such as for load balancing, reliability or security reasons. Different configurations and locations of programs and data are contemplated for use with techniques of described herein. A variety of distributed computing techniques are appropriate for implementing the components of the illustrated embodiments in a distributed manner including but not limited to TCP/IP sockets, RPC, RMI, HTTP, Web Services (XML-RPC, JAX-RPC, SOAP, etc.). Other variations are possible. Also, other functionality could be provided by each component/module, or existing functionality could be distributed amongst the components/modules in different ways, yet still achieve the functions of a TQSS. 
     Furthermore, in some embodiments, some or all of the components of the TQSS may be implemented or provided in other manners, such as at least partially in firmware and/or hardware, including, but not limited to one or more application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), standard integrated circuits, controllers (e.g., by executing appropriate instructions, and including microcontrollers and/or embedded controllers), field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), complex programmable logic devices (“CPLDs”), etc. Some or all of the system components and/or data structures may also be stored (e.g. as software instructions or structured data) on a computer-readable medium, such as a hard disk, a memory, a network, or a portable media article to be read by an appropriate drive or via an appropriate connection. Such computer program products may also take other forms in other embodiments. Accordingly, embodiments of this disclosure may be practiced with other computer system configurations. 
     From the foregoing it will be appreciated that, although specific embodiments have been described herein for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the methods and systems for performing travel-related product quality assessment discussed herein are applicable to other architectures other than a client-server or web-based architecture. Also, the methods and systems discussed herein are applicable to differing protocols, communication media, including optical, wireless, cable, etc., and devices, including wireless handsets, electronic organizers, personal digital assistants, portable email machines, game machines, pagers, navigation devices such as GPS receivers, etc. 
     Implementation Details of One Embodiment of the Present Invention 
     Appendix A includes a database schema for a database that is used by an evaluation service to evaluate travel-related products according to on embodiment of the present invention. Appendix B includes a pseudocode implementation of an air-travel-itineraries evaluation implementation of the present invention. 
     Although the present invention has been described in terms of particular embodiments, it is not intended that the invention be limited to these embodiments. Modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the art. For example, any of a number of different programming languages and database-management systems can be used to implement embodiments of the present invention. Various embodiments of the present invention may be implemented by varying familiar programming parameters, including modular organization, control structures, data structures, variables, and other such parameters. As discussed above, product-evaluation according to the present invention may be carried out in client-side applications, by evaluation services, by vendors, and by other parties, services, and computational facilities. While airplane itineraries represent an exemplary travel-related product, many other travel-related products can be evaluated by embodiments of the present invention. 
     The foregoing description, for purposes of explanation, used specific nomenclature to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. However, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that the specific details are not required in order to practice the invention. The foregoing descriptions of specific embodiments of the present invention are presented for purpose of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings. The embodiments are shown and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical applications, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims and their equivalents: